Posted on 04/30/2025 6:50:10 AM PDT by DFG
The Republican-led Texas House has officially caved to the radical Left’s war on free speech—and shockingly, it’s being spearheaded by none other than the state’s own scandal-plagued former House Speaker Dade Phelan.
On Tuesday, House Bill 366 passed with bipartisan support, making it a potential crime in the state of Texas to share or distribute AI-generated and “altered media”—including political memes—without a government-approved disclaimer on political ads.
According to the bill:
“A person may not, with the intent to influence an election, knowingly cause to be published, distributed, or broadcast political advertising that includes an image, audio recording, or video recording of an officeholder’s or candidate’s appearance, speech, or conduct that did not occur in reality, including an image, audio recording, or video recording that has been altered using generative artificial intelligence technology, unless the political advertising includes a disclosure from the person or another person on whose behalf the political advertising is published, distributed, or broadcast indicating that the image, audio recording, or video recording did not occur in reality.”
Let that sink in: Texas Republicans — yes, Republicans — are now trying to police memes.
The bill makes it a Class A misdemeanor for candidates, officeholders, or political committees to knowingly distribute political ads that use manipulated images, audio, or video—especially if created with generative AI—without an explicit disclosure that the content did not occur in reality. The law applies to any group spending over $100 on such materials and seeks to curb misleading media that could influence elections.
Under the bill, the Texas Ethics Commission will define the specific formatting for these required disclosures. However, media platforms and service providers like internet hosts, broadcasters, and billboard owners are exempt from liability.
If signed into law, the legislation will take effect on September 1, 2025.
(Excerpt) Read more at thegatewaypundit.com ...
If I read it correctly, it also only applies to candidates and political committees, not to the general public?
He was installed by the democrats. While the dems are small in the Texas government, they goose step together forcing garbage like this jackass into the most powerful position in Texas politics.
No surprise from the purple state of Texas!
Any chance Abbott signs it into law?
I'm with you.
It’s absolutely forbidden by the first amendment. You are correct.
The remedy in law for a spoofed image is slander or libel, which are civil remedies.
That’s kinda what I’m thinking.
Or if the media had to say that they just made up stuff about Trump. Or if 60 Minutes had to say, “the clip of Kamala Harris that you just saw never happened in real life.”
Still images are OK under this bill. It’s deep-fake AI video that would have to be noted as such.
It would appear that Texas has been assimilated.
Suppose CBS published a story saying that President Trump had said that black people should be put back in chains, that women shouldn't be allowed the right to vote, and that Adolf Hitler was a great guy. I think we would all agree that the government should enforce a defamation lawsuit against CBS for deliberately lying about what he had said.
However, if you oppose this law, you are effectively saying it is perfectly okay if rather than reporting the story, CBS used a digitally altered image and voice of Trump to make it appear as if he had said those exact words. In other words, telling people that is what Trump said is illegal, but showing Trump actually saying that isn't.
I'd bet if this reaches the Supreme Court, they would uphold it, or something very close to it. As they should - no person should have their own face and voice altered to make it appear they said something they did not say.
The goal is, obviously, to head off deceptive AI generated pictures, videos to influence elections.
Calling a fake video a meme does not absolve the fake from being deception.
Just by reading the bill, I would have no objections.
Stay in your lane, Mr. Coloradan.
Just means I know what it means to watch my state fall. Texas is coming. You guys are where we were 20 years ago. Wake up now. Take it from someone who knows. Texas is purple. Sooner y'all accept it, sooner y'all might be able to do something about it.
Riiiiight! Because this will be used to silence the left who don’t know how to meme and whose propaganda is distributed by the mainstream media.
Darn. I was ready to turn myself in!
Those suits would happen after the elections wouldn’t they?
Texas was under siege before Colorado but Texas has been fighting back and are a different people than Californians and Coloradans.
I think there is a good chance SCOTUS would uphold this, or something very close to this.
Yes, libel and slander are civil remedies, but they are still remedies enforced by the government, so it is still the government punishing a person for that speech. And, because libel and slander are enforced by the government, they must get around the First Amendment, which is why NYT v. Sullivan exists.
I think there is a very strong argument that using a digitally-altered image and sound to make it appear a person said something they did not say is per se actual malice. It's purposefully promulgating a lie.
There already are criminal codes popping up that provide protection for private citizens who have their images digitally altered for pornographic purposes, despite the pornography itself being legal. I don't think the Supreme Court will have a problem with criminal penalties there either given the unique, immediate and irreparable harm posed by digitally-altered lies using a person's image.
I have a BETTER idea. Pass legislation that campaign ads can ONLY mention what your candidate proposes, that all speeches during a campaign can ONLY speak of what YOU propose. Candidates must be forced to SELL themselves and THEIR ideas to the electorate rather than be allowed to demonize their opponents. The law I propose would make it illegal to mention your opponent. If someone is unable to sell themselves and their own ideas to the public, they don’t deserve being elected.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.