Bill Description: House Bill 565 would allow a candidate for office whose action or speech is deceptively represented through the use of synthetic media in an electioneering communication to seek injunctive relief as well as general and/or special damages.
Rating: -3
NOTE: House Bill 565 is related to House Bill 426 and House Bill 407, both 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 565 would amend Section 67-6602, Idaho Code, to broaden the definition of "electioneering communication" to include certain communication within 60 days of a primary election. The current definition applies only to the 30 days before a primary election. Because "electioneering communication" is a category of free speech subject to numerous regulations and reporting requirements, this change increases the periods during which the government imposes excessive infringements on the right to free speech.
Additionally, a period beginning 60 days before a primary election could overlap with the legislative session, meaning that communication referencing a legislator who is both in session and a candidate in the May primary could be considered “electioneering communication.”
(-1)
House Bill 565 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" and to "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 565 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, but no one else would be granted a similar remedy.
Officials may decide that certain manipulated content could meet the legal definition of fraud, harassment, libel, or some other legitimate crime. If they do, the law should provide the same remedies to all potential victims, not carve out special protections for a favored class, such as political candidates.
(-1)
