X Corp., the social media platform that Elon Musk took private and rebranded from Twitter, Inc. to X Corp. They are challenging the constitutionality of a law that prohibits the use of deepfakes to influence elections or injure an election candidate. The Minnesota law, which imposes criminal penalties, including potential jail time, on individuals who disseminate deepfake media while knowing its falsity or acting with reckless disregard for its authenticity, has drawn significant attention.
Democratic state Senator Erin Maye Quade, center, was the chief author of the legislation. Its reach is particularly limited, only extending to 90 days before a party nominating convention and after early voting starts for primary or general elections. The legal framework would be an important step towards preventing the proliferation of harmful falsities that threaten the integrity of our elections.
X Corp.’s suit argues that the state law enacted in 2023 is preempted by a 1996 federal statute. This federal law is meant to protect social media platforms from being held liable for harmful content posted by their users. The company claims that the Minnesota law is unconstitutional First Amendment infringement. Without these rights, free discourse—especially political discourse—truthful or otherwise, would not be free at all.
Alan Rozenshtein, a law professor at the University of Minnesota, explained the significance of the legal challenge. He said it’s important for people to distinguish between free speech concerns and criticisms of Musk as a person. Rozenshtein expressed confidence regarding the outcome of the lawsuit, stating, “I’m almost positive that this will be struck down.”
The Minnesota law has already been put to some intense scrutiny and legal challenges. Its content creator—Christopher Kohls— along with GOP state Representative Mary Franson —had filed a constitutional challenge against it. As X Corp. moves forward with its lawsuit, Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison’s office is obligated to defend the state’s laws in court. The attorney general’s office — which brought the actual lawsuit against the city — announced it is still reviewing the lawsuit and will act accordingly.
X Corp. has claimed that while the law’s intention may seem innocuous, it could inadvertently criminalize benign political expression, including humor. The company claims that these types of restrictions would put excessive liability on social media companies for content moderation.
“While the law’s reference to banning ‘deep fakes’ might sound benign, in reality it would criminalize innocuous, election-related speech, including humor, and make social-media platforms criminally liable for censoring such speech,” – X Corp.
In its comments, the company pointed out that, instead of protecting democracy, the law might pose a threat to it. The fight against deepfakes and their potential damage to democracy is far from over. Rozenshtein’s comments were incredibly helpful in shaping our understanding of how the public perceives and responds to misinformation.
“People want to be fooled, and it’s very bad for our democracy, but it’s not something I think can be solved with a deepfakes ban,” – Alan Rozenshtein.
Either way, both parties are preparing for a multi-million-dollar courtroom clash with enormous implications for free speech and election integrity. At the same time, expert scholars are rigorously examining the impact this case could have. This result would set important national precedents for regulating all digital content. Most importantly, it will serve to clarify the line between protecting our democracy and freedom of expression.
