Musk vs. Minnesota: Does the ban on DeepfaK choice violate freedom of speech?

(Fox 9) – – Elon Musk and the Social Media website, which was previously known as Twitter, sue the state of Minnesota for its DeepfaK election law.

Free or enemy?

Constitutional question:

The law was adopted with almost unanimous support in 2023, but Musk says that the restriction of Deepfakes violates the first change.

Right -wing experts say that a clear constitutional question must be answered: the law could cool potentially protected language, but the judges may have the need to raise new fences in a brave new world.

Defining Deepfakes

KI manipulations:

Donald Trump and Kamala Harris were not really arrested, as they see it in some Deepfake videos of the election season.

And another Ai-Created video put words in Harris’ mouth.

“I am the ultimate diversity,” said the realistically sounding Deepfake presidential candidate.

This video was widespread, including Elon Musk on his social media platform X.

“Elon Musk has shown that he has no reluctance when it comes to damaging our democracy,” said Senator Erin Maye Quade (DFL-Apple Valley) and had the ability to create highly realistic videos and pictures to damage candidates that he does not like, of course he will do so. “

Minnesotas borders

How is it hurt ?:

Senator Maye Quade wrote the law of Minnesota in order to distinguish the spread of deep papal under certain conditions under certain conditions.

It makes a deep papal illegal if it is sent out within 90 days of a choice, a reasonable person would not know that it was wrong and it should violate a candidate.

But Muschus is suing the state and says that the law violates the right to freedom of expression.

His lawsuit contains another example that Trump is arrested as an example of a possible injury, but Maye Quade says that this would still be legal.

“When I went through the lawsuit, I said every example that they gave, I said: ‘Did you read this law at all?’,” Said Maye Quade. “For example, what would not be allowed is if someone made the candidate who runs on the earlier seat of Mr. Eichhorn, a deep papal that shows them together and may do something inappropriate.”

Justin Eichorn is the senator who had resigned this year after the Bloomington police arrested him in a minor prostitution sting.

The legal question

Where is the line ?:

Another court already decided that the law of Minnesota parody and satire allowed, but said that the question of the first change still has to be solved.

Legal professor David Schultz says that the government does not like to give the government too much discretion to assess the content of the speech, but until recently they were not confronted with the effects of the deep paw technology.

“The Supreme Court never said that the first change is absolute,” said Schultz. “There are lines. The question is, where are these lines now in 2025?”

According to Schultz, Maye Quade has another calculation that prohibits technology, which transforms innocent photos into pornography, probably a stronger legal argument.

The General Prosecutor’s office in Minnesota announces FOX 9 that his lawyers will check the Musk lawsuit and react to court.