Elon Musk
Court Nixes California AI Deepfake Law, Free Speech Wins
Welcome to The Modern Memo — where our readers don’t come for fluff, filters, or focus-grouped headlines. They come for the truth. We don’t spin. We don’t censor. And we don’t dance around the narrative — we swing a machete straight through it. If it matters to America, we cover it — raw, real, and relentlessly honest. AI Deepfake Ruling a Major Win for Elon Musk’s X Platform A federal court has struck down an unconstitutional California law that limited free speech by controlling the use of AI-generated “deepfake” videos during elections. The law is one of the strictest in the United States. Elon Musk and his platform, X, joined the lawsuit to challenge the law and scored a major victory with this decision. However, the judge avoided ruling directly on free speech claims. Instead, he based his decision on Section 230 of the federal Communications Decency Act. This act protects online platforms from being held responsible for what their users post. What Was the Law About? In direct conflict with the First Amendment, the law signed by California Governor Gavin Newsom in 2024 aimed to block social media platforms from hosting AI-generated videos featuring politicians or public figures. Newsom pushed for the legislation after Elon Musk shared a viral AI video of then-Vice President Kamala Harris. She was portrayed as saying she was the “ultimate diversity hire.” Newsom said the video “should be illegal” and said he would sign a bill “in a matter of weeks to make sure it is.” (RELATED: Trump Dismisses Rumors of Targeting Elon Musk’s Companies, Calls for American Business to “Thrive Like Never Before”) Manipulating a voice in an “ad” like this one should be illegal. I’ll be signing a bill in a matter of weeks to make sure it is. pic.twitter.com/NuqOETkwTI — Gavin Newsom (@GavinNewsom) July 29, 2024 Why Was the Law Challenged in Court? The law gave the government too much control over what people could post online. It was designed to punish parody, comedy, and political satire—all forms of speech protected under the First Amendment. Those who challenged the law included: Christopher Kohls, the video creator who posted the Kamala Harris deepfake Elon Musk’s X platform, in a 65-page lawsuit, said the law targeted free expression The Babylon Bee, a conservative comedy and satire site Rumble, a video-sharing platform that competes with YouTube The plaintiffs argued that the law would: Discourage parody or humor about politicians Pressure platforms to over-censor content Violate the First Amendment by favoring some views over others Musk described the law as an attempt to “make parody illegal,” and said it would lead to unnecessary censorship. You’re not gonna believe this, but @GavinNewsom just announced that he signed a LAW to make parody illegal, based on this video 🤣🤣 https://t.co/bdykNuxe6G — Elon Musk (@elonmusk) September 18, 2024 What Did the Judge Say? On Tuesday, Federal Judge John Mendez struck down the law. According to Politico, Mendez said that platforms hosting deepfakes, “don’t have anything to do with these videos that the state is objecting to,” and that Section 230 releases them from liability. This ruling means the state cannot force platforms to remove deepfakes simply because they are politically misleading. Free Speech Question Left Unanswered—Or Is It? Even though the case was largely about First Amendment rights, Mendez did not rule on that issue. He said it was not necessary because the law already failed under Section 230. “I’m simply not reaching that issue,” he told the lawyers during the hearing. (RELATED: So-Called ‘Equality Act’ Could Undo Free Speech, Mandate Murder Of Unborn Children, Make Pedophiles A ‘Protected Class’) BUT this ruling is still a major victory for free speech advocates everywhere. In a free society, government officials don’t police political speech—especially during election season, when open debate matters most. The Constitution protects the First Amendment. It’s not a privilege granted by politicians. Final Thoughts This case isn’t just about deepfakes. It’s about who controls the narrative. The California government—from the governor down—tried to silence speech they didn’t like. They hid behind AI fears and “disinformation panic.” Judge Mendez saw through it. And free speech won. Let’s be clear: the law was never about protecting voters from disinformation. It was about protecting politicians. This bill was designed from the beginning to shut down criticism and uncomfortable truths in the name of “election integrity.” That is NOT what freedom is about. That is tyranny in disguise. If free speech is so easily discarded every time a politician doesn’t like a joke, a meme, or an article—like this one—then we don’t have a republic. We have a regime. Make no mistake. This ruling draws a line in the sand. It tells every governor, state legislature, every activist dreaming of being the thought police: you don’t get to dictate what Americans say, share, or criticize online. The PEOPLE hold the government accountable—even when it’s inconvenient. Especially when it’s inconvenient. The battle over AI is just beginning. While AI technology poses new risks, lawmakers will need to find ways to address those risks without infringing on constitutional rights. This ruling shows that broad, sweeping restrictions won’t survive in court. Other states that have or are considering similar laws will do well to remember this ruling. The Constitution isn’t optional. Protecting elections is important, but you can’t legislate your way around the First Amendment. Cut through the noise. Drown out the spin. Deliver the truth. At The Modern Memo, we’re not here to soften the blow — we’re here to land it. The media plays defense for the powerful. We don’t. If you’re done with censorship, half-truths, and gaslighting headlines, pass this on. Expose the stories they bury. This isn’t just news — it’s a fight for reality. And it doesn’t work without you.
Scott Jennings Warns Elon Musk Third Party Could Divide ‘Forces’ Trying To ‘Save Western Civilization’
Written by Daily Caller News Foundation Reporter/Clipper Jason Cohen. CNN senior political commentator Scott Jennings warned Elon Musk on Sunday that his newly launched third party could divide the right and help Democrats win. Musk posted on X Saturday that he had just created the “America Party,” asserting it would restore “freedom” to Americans. Jennings said on “State of the Union with Jake Tapper and Dana Bash” that the effort could backfire by splitting conservatives and Republicans who otherwise share core goals. (RELATED: ‘If I Was Waiting For FEMA, I Would Be Screwed’: You’ll Sob Watching What’s Happening In NC Months After Hurricane Helene) “It’s harder than it looks to start a political party. And, you know, we’ll see where they go with it. My humble advice to Elon, who I admire very much, actually, is that you may be dividing the forces of people who want to save Western civilization to the benefit of the people who don’t,” Jennings said. “And so, to the extent that this effort would divide conservatives and Republicans against each other, that wouldn’t be helpful, because it would leave the country to people who want unfettered immigration, who don’t share your fiscal views, and so on and so forth.” “So, we’ll see where it goes. I sort of hope everybody puts the band back together the way they had it back in 2024, because when everybody was working together, things worked quite well,” he added. Musk began to repeatedly float the idea of creating the “America Party” to cater to disaffected fiscal conservatives and libertarians after becoming frustrated by Republican lawmakers’ support for President Donald Trump’s “big, beautiful” bill — which the president signed into law on Friday. (RELATED: California Dems Blame Wildfires On Trump After Their Party Created Tinderbox Of Regs) However, political experts said that Musk’s billions would be better spent buying him influence within the GOP’s existing party structure instead of challenging America’s entrenched two-party duopoly. To continue reading this article, please click here. TMM Analysis We are living through a major social revolution, whether we want to admit it or not. Sometimes it can be hard to see the forest from the trees. But rest assured, change is here. We already lived through a major disruption with the MAGA movement upending years of Republican-In-Name-Only (RINO) leadership. So, does Musk have the power to create a third party? The short answer is: yes. The long answer is: yes, but he probably won’t see it come to fruition the way he truly desires. Unless he can harness the power of all those feeling disenfranchised by Trump Republicanism, far-leftist extremist Democrats (which seem to be the only Democrats who have any type of power), and bring all young people together under one umbrella that is both pro-life and pro-choice, pro-America, while also being pro-globalist, he doesn’t really stand a chance of making the difference he hope. (RELATED: Guys, We May Have Found The Most Addictive New Outdoors Show On YouTube) In the same way that the Tea Party, Libertarians, and the Independents do very little-to-nothing to change American politics, any new party would probably face the same negligible attention. It can be easy to think that you have power, particularly if you have a lot of followers on various Internet platforms, but none of this power is real. No matter how many likes, clicks, and followers you have, almost none of it translates into macro-real-world influence. People with major followings on X, who think they are the voices within American politics, do not seem to realize they actually have less influence that the women made famous through MomTok (Secret Lives of Mormon Wives). Isn’t that insanely humbling to realize? We are interested in what you think about the chances of Musk’s potential third party changing American politics forever. Email us at editor@themodernmemo.com with your opinion, as we want to hear it all!
Wisconsin Could Control America If Voters Stay Home In April 2025
Wisconsin voters have the potential to decide the fate of all Americans in April, a situation finally getting some of the attention it deserves (but probably not enough). Voters in Wisconsin will head to the polls on April 1 to decide the ideological balance of the state’s Supreme Court, which could have a direct impact on every future presidential election. The “highly consequential” race will further dictate the future of issues such as life, religious freedom, as well as election integrity, and more. The current balance in Wisconsin’s Supreme Court is a 4-3 liberal majority after Justice Janet Protasiewicz won in 2023. Justice Ann Walsh Bradley is officially retiring her position, allowing for either an even balance or a significant liberal majority to dictate the future of Wisconsin’s legislation, according to Breitbart. “It’s probably going to be just as competitive as the last couple of presidential and gubernatorial elections and Senate elections here,” said former Wisconsin Republican Gov. Scott Walker, according to NBC News. Though the race is supposed to be nonpartisan, Walked noted the situation is promised to “reach a level that much more like what you see in partisan elections.” Who Are The Candidates? Left-wing billionaires like George Soros, Silicon Valley’s Reid Hoffman, and more, are pouring millions into Dane County Circuit Court judge Susan Crawford. “I believe people in Wisconsin deserve to feel safe as they go about their lives…My top priority in making decisions is always to make our communities safer,” said Crawford of her policies, according to Ballotpedia. Other liberal judges have also endorsed Crawford’s campaign. The Milwaukee Police Association officially endorsed Waukesha County Circuit court judge Brad Schimel’s campaign. He says he’s running to “restore confidence in the people of Wisconsin that the justice system will be fair and impartial…I will be honest about my principles, but will never prejudge a case.” Support is rolling into both campaigns, including $1 million from a group with ties to technology billionaire Elon Musk, according to Politico. Why This Matters To People Outside Of Wisconsin “Wisconsin is the only state that was one of the closest three margins in the last three Presidential elections. It was critical in deciding who became president each of the last three elections. The margins have been by less than 30,000 with over 3,000,000 votes cast,” Million Voices’ John Graves explains. “The four liberal justices overruled the three conservative justices after the liberal took over the court in 2023, and reversed the ruling on drop boxes and other critical election integrity rulings. That’s why it’s the most important state right now, and that’s why this election is so important.” The Wisconsin election isn’t just about what happens for state residents. The issues that matter most to you ultimately, as they trickle upwards from the local level, end up in the hands of those who run this nation. Wisconsin basically chooses the president every four years. Do you want policies related to noncitizen voting, ballot drop boxes, and more, to be part of Wisconsin’s electoral system? It is essential to tell your friends, family, pastor, anyone you know who may have ties to Wisconsin, to get out and vote in April. We’ll be bringing you the latest updates on the races, so be sure to share them with your kin. Read more from Million Voices and get your Wisconsin Voter Guide! Explore more from The Modern Memo.