Bill Description: House Bill 664 would allow a candidate for office whose action or speech is digitally altered through the use of synthetic media in an electioneering communication to seek injunctive relief as well as general and/or special damages.
Rating: -2
NOTE: House Bill 664 is related to House Bill 565, House Bill 426, and House Bill 407, all introduced earlier this session.
Does it violate the spirit or the letter of either the U.S. Constitution or the Idaho Constitution? Examples include restrictions on speech, public assembly, the press, privacy, private property, or firearms. Conversely, does it restore or uphold the protections guaranteed in the U.S. Constitution or the Idaho Constitution?
House Bill 664 would create the Section 67-6628A, Idaho Code, which would be titled the "Freedom From AI-Rigged (FAIR) Elections Act."
The bill would define "Synthetic media" as "an audio recording or a video recording of an individual's speech or conduct that has been created through the use of generative adversarial network techniques or other digital technology in a manner to create a realistic but false audio or video that to a reasonable individual is of a real event, action, or speech that did not actually occur in reality; and provides a fundamentally different understanding or impression of the event, action, or speech than a reasonable person would have from the unaltered, original version of the audio recording or video recording."
The bill would allow a candidate "whose action or speech is deceptively represented through the use of synthetic media in an electioneering communication" to "seek injunctive or other equitable relief prohibiting the publication of such synthetic media." The candidate also could "bring an action for general damages, special damages, or both against the information content provider."
The bill creates "an affirmative defense" if the "synthetic media" includes a disclosure stating, "This (video/audio) has been manipulated" in a specific manner prescribed by law.
This act is a prohibition against certain types of free speech, including political speech and artistic expression involving the use of digital technology.
(-1)
Does it violate the principle of equal protection under the law? Examples include laws which discriminate or differentiate based on age, gender, or religion, or which apply laws, regulations, rules, or penalties differently based on such characteristics. Conversely, does it restore or protect the principle of equal protection under the law?
In addition to being overbroad and burdening free speech, House Bill 664 would create a double standard. A political candidate could seek injunctive relief as well as general and/or special damages for the publication of certain content. No one else, however, would be granted a similar remedy.
It is theoretically possible for an extreme case involving manipulated content to meet the legal definition of fraud, harassment, libel, or some other legitimate crime. If there were to happen, the same legal remedies should apply to all potential victims. It is inappropriate for the law to carve out special protections for a favored class, such as political candidates.
(-1)
