Even as they spend state resources and much time and effort on opposing the Trump administration in the name of fighting “authoritarianism,” California Gov. Gavin Newsom and Attorney General Rob Bonta have headed back to court to continue their fight to resurrect a state law that would give California officials the power to censor and kill online satire videos in the name of fighting “deepfakes” and “misinformation.”
On Sept. 30, Bonta’s office formally lodged an appeal with the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco, seeking to undo a lower court judge’s order blocking the state from enforcing the law that the judge determined likely would trample the First Amendment.
Bonta filed the appeal without fanfare. And the attorney general’s office has not yet filed its opening brief in the appeal.
According to the online court docket, that opening brief is due by Dec. 12.
An answer brief is due about a month later.
The appeal comes less than two months since U.S. District Judge John Mendez in Sacramento entered an order permanently blocking California from enforcing its law targeting so-called “deepfake” satirical videos targeted at political candidates posted on social media or elsewhere online.
The order came as the outcome of three consolidated lawsuits, all of which challenged two California laws. Those measures, known as Assembly Bill 2655 and AB 2839, combined to require the operators of social media platforms, like Facebook, X and YouTube, to refuse to post or to take down videos or other posts created with so-called Generative AI tools to create satirical videos in which candidates for office are portrayed “doing or saying something that the candidate did not do or say.” Such videos are commonly known as “deepfakes.”
The legislation included no exceptions for satire or parody.
To comply with the law, all such content must include prominently placed warnings and labels advising viewers that the content is fake and was created using AI.
When he signed the laws, Gov. Newsom asserted the laws were needed to “defend democracy” against “misinformation” and “deceptive content,” which could fool voters into believing candidates and public officials said or did things they did not say or do.
The legislation appeared to be particularly spurred after prominent billionaire Elon Musk, owner of the X social media site, as well as automaker Tesla and private space exploration company, SpaceX, shared a parody video in July 2024 targeted at former Vice President Kamala Harris, a California Democrat who was then the Democratic candidate for U.S. President against Trump.
That video was created by online satirical video maker Christopher Kohls, who posts under the moniker of “Mr. Reagan.”
In the video, the AI generated spoof of “Kamala Harris” calls herself the “ultimate diversity hire;” asserts that anyone who criticizes her for any reason is “both sexist and racist;” says she doesn’t “know the first thing about running the country;” and has learned from former President Joe Biden “rule number one: carefully hide your total incompetence,” among other digs at the real Harris’ perceived shortcomings as a presidential candidate.
The video ends with the fake “Harris” saying: “You think the country went to [beeped out expletive] over the past four years? You ain’t seen nothing yet. [Cackles].”
After Newsom signed the measures into law, legal challenges were immediately filed in court, including lawsuits launched by Kohls, the online satire site, The Babylon Bee, and Musk’s X Corp.
The Babylon Bee notably routinely creates satirical videos and has used those videos to particularly needle Newsom and other California Democrats.
All of the lawsuits similarly argued the laws violated the First Amendment speech rights of Americans, particularly those opposed to the Democrats who dominate California’s state government.
The lawsuits assert the laws would chill political speech and particularly political satire, which has long been recognized as a powerful tool of debate and dissent against the government and powerful elected officials.
X also argued the laws would unconstitutionally compel social media companies to operate as censors, in place of the state government.
In court, Judge Mendez sided with the plaintiffs.
In an order issued Aug. 29 in favor of the challengers, Mendez called the laws “complete censorship” that would lead to the state compelling people to speak certain things in a certain way.
And he particularly noted the state’s labeling and warning rules would particularly harm the ability of political satirists to speak, as the labels would effectively fill the screen, especially when viewed on smartphones and other mobile devices – the intended method of viewing for social media content creators.
“Put simply, a mandatory disclaimer for parody or satire would kill the joke,” Mendez wrote.
And the judge said the First Amendment does not empower a state government to decide what is and is not allowable political speech, even in the case of so-called “deepfake” videos.
“While there are serious concerns about deepfakes and AI affecting elections, (the California measure) represents a law that is well intentioned but constitutionally infirm. When it comes to political expression, the antidote is not prematurely stifling content creation and singling out specific speakers but encouraging counter speech, rigorous fact-checking, and the uninhibited flow of democratic discourse,” Mendez wrote.
“Novel mediums of speech and even low-brow humor have equal entitlement to First Amendment protection and the principles undergirding the freedom of expression do not waver when technological changes occur.”
Mendez issued a permanent injunction prohibiting California from enforcing its law.
However, rather than accept the loss, Bonta and Newsom appear to wish to continue fighting to win for themselves the power to restrict such videos.
The appeal comes even as the California Democrats have taken to loudly proclaiming their efforts to fight the Trump administration at nearly every turn amount to fighting “fascism” and “authoritarianism.”
Bonta has filed numerous lawsuits against Trump administration actions since Trump took office in January 2025.
And Newsom has publicly railed against the president in personally delivered remarks at press conferences and on television, while his press office uses social media to mock and criticize the president and others in his administration.
Such posts have notably included a deepfake video mocking Vice President JD Vance, a post which critics quickly pointed out would be prohibited under the laws Newsom signed and is fighting to resurrect in court.
