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 ...
Courts exist to draw lines between conduct that is permitted, and conduct that isn't. We already draw fine lines regarding speech in libel/slander cases where even civil punishments can destroy a person's livelihood, financial security, etc.. Yet we don't get rid of those laws because of the chance they could be a slippery slope to something worse.
I think the danger to every person of having their image and voice stolen to falsely portray their words and actions is dramatic. Lying about people is one thing, but at least there a person has the chance to do their own background investigation and voice some skepticism. But with digitally altered images, there is no real way to investigate further because you are looking at what appears to be the primary source.
Actually, those scumbags were too smart to truly lie, which is sort of the difference here. I read that letter very carefully when it came out, and noted right away that they never said that it actually was Russian disinformation. They only said that it had "all the hallmarks of Russian disinformation", which is not the same thing as saying that it actually was.
Believe me, I'm not defending them because I think what they did was actually worse. They were all intelligence officers, and experts in disinformation. They knew that what they said would be "misinterpreted" and used by the Democrats and the media to support a claim that it really was Russian disinformation. That was their entire purpose - to create the narrative that it was Russian disinformation without ever actually making that claim. They left themselves an out, which they ended up using later, to subsequently claim that they never actually said that it was Russian disinformation. It is about as dishonest as you can get.
But, the point is that if you read the letter very carefully when it first came out, you at least had the chance to notice that the language did not make that exact claim. But with a well-done deep fake, You simply can't tell, and it looks like that is exactly what the person is saying. That's why it has to be stopped.
Exactly.
This "Direct Attack in Texas: House Passes RINO Dade Phelan’s Orwellian Bill" ought to serve as fair notice to anyone who has previously been too busy to notice.
On a scale larger than Texas, if Congress doesn't implement Trump's initiatives within the next election cycle it will continue to creep closer to each of us regardless of where we live.
Trying to think of Texas Republicans that I have respected and admired.
My list of one is Tom “the Hammer” Delay who after Gingrich and Livingston were taken down by the FBI files Crooked Hillary had her in possession, he stepped up and almost singlehandedly orchestrated Slick Willie’s impeachment.
The Texas Republican Hall of Shame would be a long list, headed by the Bush Crime Family and Kenneth Starr who gave the REAL Clinton crimes a pass while obsessing on the what happened in the Oral Office.
“They only said that it had “all the hallmarks of Russian disinformation””
That is the lie. It is an affirmative statement, and if it does not mean that it has “all the hallmarks of Russian disinformation” then what exactly does it mean, also, they knew at the time that it was NOT Russian disformation. It had already been vetted by the FBI.
Quite important, broke it down so it reads slower.
When a growing number of "good men who do nothing" fail to act it eventually affects us all.
Consulting Firm in Georgia that Runs Democrats as Republicans
You guys don’t seem to know that Texas is decades ahead of Colorado, they don’t have to learn from them, it is Colorado that ignored the Texans war against the left of the last few decades and learned nothing.
Texas started their fight back long ago, decades ago, while Colorado remained passive and submissive Texas was fighting for the schools, for the textbooks, for Texas identity and culture, and to get republicans and conservatives into office.
“ The 51 liars who signed the letter about the Biden tapes could be considered. They all lied knowlingly and skated.”
Yes, and this stupid statute would have done nothing to prevent what they did.
This is about chilling speech and preventing just mockery of politically powerful.
It’s a hammer, just like the prosecution of the guy who shared the Hillary meme saying to vote the day after the election.
First, I think most of us are proud to call Texas one of our states, and I think the other posters and I merely argue that Texas needs to fight the battle relentlessly.
Bear in mind the Left views its agenda not in decades, but as the "Long March".
The Good News is Republicans have held the majority of both the state Senate and House for the past 20 years.
The Bad News is there is evidence of a growing number of RINO's in the R ranks. (Talk about deception and betrayal by the Left let alone outright assassination.)
As noted upthread by another Freeper, there is also the seemingly inconsistent inclination of Texas to vote for and send crazy leftist politicians to the federal legislature.
Also - and this got almost no attention - the letter also said this:
We want to emphasize that we do not know if the emails, provided to the New York Post by President Trump’s personal attorney Rudy Giuliani, are genuine or not and that we do not have evidence of Russian involvement -- just that our experience makes us deeply suspicious that the Russian government played a significant role in this case.
See what I mean? They put in the disclaimers saying they had no proof but were just "deeply suspicious", while knowing how the press and Democrats would spin it despite the disclaimers.
I'm a lawyer, and am used to listening in an extremely literal manner because that's how some people try to slip things by you. And when I read that letter, I thought "this is a bunch of crap -- it doesn't actually say anything at all." But that's not how most people read things, so people ignored the disclaimers and weasel words, and just summarized the letter as saying "it's Russian disinformation". And that's how a lot of Freepers remember it even though that isn't what it actually said.
That was the intention of authors all along, and it worked. Because the signers of that letter were themselves all masters of how to mislead and deceive people while maintaining plausible deniability.
It's only "mockery" as opposed to just a lie if people actually know it isn't true. If they believe the person actually said it, then it isn't mockery at all, but simply a lie.
In this case, a candidate or PAC uses altered images, audio or video to damage their opponent. Their prize is being elected before it can be litigated.
The key here is one candidate cannot present a fabricated video to lie in the campaign. If it stayed limited to campaigns or PACs, and stays limited to fabricated video, audio, and images - not one candidate lying about the other - I think it may pass constitutional muster.
Just my $.02.
Who gets to decide if it is a lie?
Hillary Clinton? Don’t kid yourself. This will be abused.
It's not a question of whether or not it is a "lie". It is a question of whether or not the image and sound was digitally altered to make it appear that something was said by someone that they did not say. That's pretty clear-cut, and certainly a brighter line than we draw in many other facets of the criminal law, including fraud, etc..
What do you think about AI-generative porn that takes a real person's face, puts it on a naked body of someone else, then distributes it as porn So that it looks like the real person in question participated in the porn. Do you think that should be illegal, or not?
To me, this isn't much different from basic laws regarding forgery and identity theft. Everyone is free to say whatever they wish, but they're not free to pretend to be someone else for their own benefit, and for the harm of the other person.
So you want to criminalize the Babylon Bee. Got it.
This article would be a crime:
Another criminal act!
Criminals at the Bee!
― Aleksandr I. Solzhenitsyn , The Gulag Archipelago 1918–1956
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.