The Blubber

A federal judge ruled on Wednesday that California's law prohibiting altered election-related communications is unconstitutional, preventing the state from enforcing it.

U.S. District Senior Judge John Mendez issued a preliminary injunction in favor of Christopher Kohls, also known as "Mr. Reagan," who argued in his lawsuit that Assembly Bill 2839 made political parody using computer-generated content illegal.

The law, written by Assemblymember Gail Pellerin, a Democrat from Santa Cruz, aimed to ban digitally manipulated communications, such as misleading mailers and video ads, that target election workers, officials, voting equipment, or candidates within four months of an election. Under the law, recipients of such content could sue for damages.

Kohls, who has around 360,000 YouTube subscribers, contended that political satire is a core First Amendment right. His lawsuit is similar to one filed by the conservative humor site The Babylon Bee, which also challenges AB 2839.

“We are pleased that the district court recognized that new technologies do not alter the core principles of First Amendment protections,” said Theodore Frank, one of Kohls' attorneys, in a statement.

State attorneys were unavailable for comment.

Kohls’ lawsuit highlighted a video he created that featured a computer-generated voiceover of Democratic presidential candidate Kamala Harris. In the satirical video, "Harris" refers to herself as a "diversity hire" and makes other exaggerated remarks.

Elon Musk, owner of Tesla, SpaceX, and X (formerly Twitter), shared the video on July 26. Two days later, Governor Gavin Newsom posted on X that he would soon sign a bill outlawing such content.

However, Judge Mendez, a George W. Bush appointee, ruled that the law was not the least restrictive method for achieving California’s goals. Instead of an outright ban, he suggested the state could have relied on counter-speech to address the issue.

“While California has a legitimate interest in safeguarding the integrity of the electoral process, AB 2839 is unconstitutional because it lacks the narrow tailoring and least restrictive means required for content-based laws under strict scrutiny,” Mendez wrote.

The state argued that the law targeted harmful misrepresentations not protected by the First Amendment. However, Mendez pointed out that the word “defamation” does not appear in the law. Rather, its scope includes misleading communications likely to damage a candidate’s reputation or electoral chances.