Read the four sources carefully, focusing on a theme or issue that connects them and the different perspective each represents. Then, write a logically organized, well-reasoned, and well-written argument that presents your own perspective on the theme or issue you identified. You must incorporate at least two of the sources provided and link the claims in your argument to supporting evidence. You may also use the other provided sources or draw upon your own knowledge. In your response, refer to the provided sources as Source A, Source B, Source C, or Source D, or by the authors’ names.

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Today, U.S. Senators Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.), Chris Coons (D-Del.), Thom Tillis (R-N.C.), and Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.), along with U.S. Representatives Maria Salazar (R-Fla.) and Madeleine Dean (D-Penn.), introduced a revised version of their bipartisan Nurture Originals, Foster Art, and Keep Entertainment Safe (NO FAKES) Act to protect the voice and visual likenesses of individuals and creators from the proliferation of digital replicas created without their consent.

“AI should empower innovation – not give scammers and online predators a free pass to exploit someone’s voice and visual likeness without permission,” said Senator Blackburn . “From artists and songwriters to students and everyday Americans, people deserve meaningful protections against deceptive deepfakes and digital impersonation. The NO FAKES Act would establish clear guardrails that protect the creative community in Tennessee and nationwide, and we are grateful to have more support than ever before for this bipartisan and bicameral legislation.”

“Whether they’re Tom Hanks or an 8th grader in Wilmington, no one should worry about someone stealing their voice or likeness,” said Senator Coons . “We’re reintroducing a stronger NO FAKES Act after working with stakeholders from across the country to make the protections in our bill more robust without compromising Americans’ free speech rights. I am proud that NO FAKES is the most advanced piece of AI legislation before Congress right now with the broadest network of supporters. Americans can’t afford to wait any longer for Congress to pass this bill and send it to the president’s desk.”

. . .

With the rapid advance of generative artificial intelligence (AI), artists and creators have already begun to see their voices and likenesses used without their consent in videos and songs created as nearly indistinguishable replicas. • In one high-profile example, AI-generated replicas of the voices of pop stars Drake and The Weeknd were used to produce a viral song titled “Heart on My Sleeve,” generating hundreds of thousands of listens on YouTube, Spotify, and other streaming platforms before it was flagged as a fake and removed from the platforms. • The harmful effects of unauthorized AI-generated content go far beyond celebrities. For example, in Maryland, a Baltimore high school athletic director was arrested and charged after using AI to create a deepfake voice recording of the school’s principal that included racist and derogatory comments about students and staff – statements the principal never actually made.

The NO FAKES Act would address the use of non-consensual digital replications in audiovisual works or sound recordings by: • Holding individuals or companies liable if they distribute an unauthorized digital replica of an individual’s voice or visual likeness; • Holding platforms liable for hosting an unauthorized digital replica if the platform has knowledge of the fact that the replica was not authorized by the individual depicted; • Excluding certain digital replicas from coverage based on recognized First Amendment protections; and • Preempting future state laws regulating digital replicas.

One common justification governments give for limiting freedom of speech is the need to prevent false information, often about the government itself. Thankfully, in the United States, the First Amendment prevents government from acting as the arbiter of truth, particularly in the context of political speech.

Recently, politicians have become concerned about potential widespread distribution of “deepfakes” of candidates and public officials. In the political context, the term “deepfakes” most commonly refers to seemingly realistic, but altered, visual or audio media appearing to show candidates doing or saying something that they did not in fact say or do. The impulse to address potential nefarious electoral use of such technology is understandable. But, as history has shown, punishing false or misleading political speech will inevitably suppress political speech generally and do more harm than good.

. . .

1. The standards and definitions for what constitutes a “deepfake” or “manipulated media” are inherently subjective and vague. Many proposals to ban political deepfakes rely on a “reasonable person” standard. That is, the law punishes edited content that would be misleading to a “reasonable person.” This is impossible to determine in any objective manner. Would-be speakers will have no way of knowing whether their speech would cross that line. Such a law would likely create a flood of charges of political ads violating the law. Enforcement will be inconsistent, and speakers will be at constant risk. Candidates would regularly file complaints against their critics. Entities that sell advertising space, such as TV and radio stations, will likely respond by rejecting more ads, and online platforms will act overzealously to take down perfectly legal content. Restrictions on political speech are bad enough, but when nobody knows exactly what those restrictions are, the harm to freedom of expression is multiplied.

. . .

The technology that enables the creation of certain types of “deepfakes” is relatively new, but manipulated media is not. Fake or doctored photographs have been around for about as long as photography itself, and, of course, photo editing technology has become more sophisticated, more widely available, easier to use, and harder to detect. Several proposals supposedly meant to address deepfakes would call into question the legality of photo, audio, and video editing practices that have existed for decades. Furthermore, the ability to publish falsehoods and intentional misquotes has existed for centuries.

Before rushing to pass new laws, it’s important to consider to what extent deepfake technology truly presents new or unique challenges to democracy. As the Supreme Court has reiterated time and again, the answer to false and deceptive speech is counterspeech. Deepfakes have been around for years and have yet to even come close to impacting any election. Lawmakers must avoid the urge to sacrifice freedom of expression in an attempt to quash an unrealized problem. Government attempts to outlaw misleading political messages will do far more harm to democracy than the mere existence of such speech. Private institutions, the media, and individual citizens can expose falsehoods and decide the value of political expression themselves.

HONOLULU (CN) — A federal judge in Hawaii delivered a sweeping victory to satirists and political commentators on Friday, ruling that the state’s law banning certain digitally altered election content violates the First Amendment.

U.S. District Judge Shanlyn Park granted summary judgment to The Babylon Bee, a conservative satire website, permanently blocking enforcement of Hawaii’s Act 191. The law, which was set to take effect Feb. 2, aimed to curb the use of deepfakes and AI-generated content in state elections.

In a 38-page opinion, the Joe Biden appointee found that the law imposed unconstitutional restrictions on political speech.

“Political speech, of course, is at the core of what the First Amendment is designed to protect,” Park wrote in her order.

The law was adopted overwhelmingly by lawmakers during the 2024 State Legislative session and signed shortly afterward by Governor Josh Green. It barred media that falsely portrayed people saying or doing things they never did, when shared with reckless disregard for the potential to damage a candidate’s reputation or electoral chances.

It also defined such media as digitally created content that could lead a reasonable viewer to believe the depicted events actually happened. It included exemptions for broadcasters and certain service providers, and it provided a safe harbor for content that included prominent disclaimers.

The Babylon Bee, which attracts more than 20 million monthly viewers, including 10,000 from Hawaii, argued that requiring disclaimers on satirical content would undermine the very nature of the humor. Park agreed, ruling these provisions were insufficient to save the law from constitutional scrutiny.

“As plaintiffs point out, Act 191’s compelled disclaimer would impermissibly alter the content, intended effect, and message of their speech,” Park wrote. “Put simply, a mandatory disclaimer for parody or satire would kill the joke,” she said.

Hawaii officials have defended the law as necessary to protect electoral integrity in an era of sophisticated AI technology. The state legislature found that “the use of deepfakes or generative AI in elections can be a powerful tool used to spread disinformation and misinformation, which can increase political tensions and result in electoral-related conflict and violence.”

Park acknowledged that Hawaii has a compelling interest in regulating political deepfakes to protect the integrity of its elections. She noted that the U.S. Supreme Court has recognized that states may act to safeguard the election process and shield voters from confusion or improper influence.

However, a compelling interest alone was not enough. Park found that the law failed the narrow-tailoring requirement, concluding that the state had not demonstrated it had chosen the least restrictive way to achieve its goals.

She suggested several alternatives the state could pursue without restricting speech, including counter-speech campaigns, educational initiatives to improve digital literacy and enforcement of existing laws against fraud and defamation.

“[State defendants] have failed to demonstrate that existing laws are insufficient to deal with the purported risk of political deepfakes and generative AI technologies on the integrity of Hawaii elections,” she said.

. . .

Park’s ruling leaves Hawaii without its deepfake law as the 2026 election season approaches and may influence similar legislative efforts in other states grappling with how to address AI-generated political content without running afoul of the First Amendment.