(C) South Dakota Searchlight
This story was originally published by South Dakota Searchlight and is unaltered.
. . . . . . . . . .
‘Election integrity’ activists speak out against labels for political deepfakes • South Dakota Searchlight [1]
['John Hult', 'More From Author', '- February', '.Wp-Block-Co-Authors-Plus-Coauthors.Is-Layout-Flow', 'Class', 'Wp-Block-Co-Authors-Plus', 'Display Inline', '.Wp-Block-Co-Authors-Plus-Avatar', 'Where Img', 'Height Auto Max-Width']
Date: 2025-02-24
A half dozen people spoke out against mandatory labels for deepfake political messaging on Monday at the South Dakota Capitol in Pierre, citing concerns that such a law could be used to suppress free speech.
The activists weren’t able to convince a panel of lawmakers to defeat the legislation, however.
Senate Bill 164 targets a narrow class of deepfakes, a term tied to phony images, audio or video of a person that are manipulated, typically with artificial intelligence programs, to appear real. The bill would require labels on deepfakes depicting candidates that appear within 90 days of an election “with the intent to injure” the depicted candidate.
People who disseminate or contract with another to disseminate such an unlabeled deepfake within the 90-day window would be subject to a class one misdemeanor, which carries up to a year in jail and a $2,000 fine. They could also be subject to civil liability.
The law would apply to the person or people who make deepfakes to deceive. It wouldn’t apply to satire deepfakes, or to broadcasters and websites paid to run deepfakes, or to internet service providers that might host them.
The bill’s sponsor, Sioux Falls Democratic Sen. Liz Larson, told the Senate State Affairs Committee that political deepfakes created with artificial intelligence “can erode public trust in the information that circulates about our democracy.”
“They can sow chaos and confusion at strategic times,” Larson said, citing examples of their use to influence elections in Turkey and for messaging during the ongoing war between Ukraine and Russia.
Support for the bill came from Stephen Gemar of Attorney General Marty Jackley’s office, as well as from Zebadiah Johnson of the Voter Defense Association.
“Our system of electoral democracy depends on having a shared reality,” Johnson said, adding, “deepfakes pose a real and substantial threat to that shared reality.”
Opponents call bill a threat to ‘God-given right’
Larson attempted to pass a similar bill last year, but it failed on the Senate floor over fears of being overbroad.
The first to speak against this year’s effort was Rick Weible, an Elkton resident who described himself as “a cyber expert and also kind of an election aficionado.”
He also testified against the bill in 2024.
The bill “is really not ready,” Weible said, noting that most candidate websites are hosted by domain name holders who operate outside the state, and therefore outside its jurisdiction.
He also said the state would be better served to tackle deepfakes meant to embarrass or harass young people.
“When we look at what’s happening in the high schools, and where we’re seeing some of the deepfakes there and the suicides that are being committed, that’s a bigger issue that should be addressed before we address politicians,” Weible said.
Others who’ve appeared alongside Weible to testify in Pierre on what they call election integrity – such as a push for paper ballots or shorter windows for absentee ballots – zeroed in on fears that the law could be used to suppress political messaging.
“This bill would weaponize the state government against those accused of using deepfakes,” said John Kunnari, who ran for a District 11 House of Representatives seat last spring.
The bill targets “our God-given rights,” he told the committee. He said “the media” has been “doing a form of deepfakes most of our lives, taking quotes, videos, photos out of context, and creating fake narratives against their opponents.”
Kunnari told South Dakota Searchlight after the hearing he doesn’t advocate the use of deepfakes to influence an election. Rather, he said, he’s concerned that the law would be used by candidates to target legitimate political messaging, calling the bill “a slippery slope” to censorship.
Committee: Disclosure is not censorship
Larson said Weible had “a really good argument” about deepfakes involving non-politicians, such as deepfake pornography.
“I feel like legislation should absolutely be expanded in future years to take a serious look at that,” she said. “This is a first step to that, and this is the first step to getting there.”
Larson said labeling a deepfake ad doesn’t stop speech.
“There’s nothing in this bill that silences Americans,” she said.
In response to committee questioning, Gemar of the Attorney General’s Office confirmed that an out-of-state website host would fall outside the state’s jurisdiction. Someone in South Dakota who contracts for the production or dissemination of a deepfake, he said, could be liable.
Sen. Chris Karr, R-Sioux Falls, moved to pass the bill. Given that deepfakes would be legal but labeled, Karr said he’s not especially concerned about the suppression of speech.
“I think it’s a good disclosure to have so people can be discerning,” Karr said.
SB 164 passed 8-1, with Sen. Tom Pischke, R-Dell Rapids, casting the lone no vote. It now heads to the full Senate.
[END]
---
[1] Url:
https://southdakotasearchlight.com/2025/02/24/election-integrity-activists-speak-out-against-labels-for-political-deepfakes/
Published and (C) by South Dakota Searchlight
Content appears here under this condition or license: Creative Commons BY-ND 4.0.
via Magical.Fish Gopher News Feeds:
gopher://magical.fish/1/feeds/news/sdsearchlight/
