
Broward judge denies violating judicial conduct code over deepfake AI call
In the routine filing with Florida's Supreme Court, Peffer denied the Judicial Qualifications Commission's charges filed last month that she violated judicial ethics rules that govern 'inappropriate political activity.'
Peffer, a first-time judicial candidate, won her seat in August and began her term in January. During her campaign, which centered on trustworthiness and ethics in the judiciary, Peffer referenced in an endorsement interview with the South Florida Sun Sentinel editorial board a book written and published by a former courthouse employee in the Orlando area called, 'The Ninth Circus Court of Florida, My 30-Year Job from Hell!'
The book, written by someone who had been terminated, 'portrays the judiciary in the Ninth Judicial Circuit as corrupt and incompetent and attacks the character' of numerous judges, including current Chief Judge Lisa Munyon, according to the JQC's charging document.
Peffer wrote in response to a Sun Sentinel editorial board questionnaire that the book's 'recent revelations' had 'highlighted an image crisis within Florida's judiciary,' according to the JQC's notice of formal charges.
At the time Peffer cited the book in the Sun Sentinel interview, it lacked any published reviews and appeared to have generated no public discourse or impact, the Sun Sentinel previously reported. Asked by the Sun Sentinel about evidence of the book creating public mistrust, Peffer sent the newspaper a link to an 18-minute recording of what purported to be a phone call about the book between Munyon, state Supreme Court Chief Justice Carlos Muñiz and Justice Renatha Francis, according to the notice of charges.
But the recording was fake, likely made with generative AI, and could be deemed so by 'any reasonable person,' the JQC said in its notice of charges.
Broward judicial candidate drops Orlando author's self-published tell-all from her campaign stump speech
Peffer was forwarded the link to the recording 'by another lawyer,' her response filed Friday said.
Peffer in her response to the charges on Friday acknowledged that she had not 'carefully listened to the call but had a recollection that the judiciary was being criticized in the recording' and did not try to determine its veracity before providing it to the newspaper.
'Judge Peffer acknowledges that she should have more carefully listened to the recording before referencing it in her answers to the editorial board. In responding to these proceedings, Judge Peffer listened to the recordings without distraction, and it was immediately apparent that the purported phone call was a 'deep fake,'' her response said.
However, she denied that she shared the recording 'despite clear evidence of its inauthenticity,' as the JQC alleged in its charges.
In her response, Peffer also admitted that she never read the disgruntled employee's book before referencing it to the Sun Sentinel and did not research the claims the employee made.
'Judge Peffer did not intend to promote the validity of the book but instead, she intended to point to the book as an example of criticism of the judiciary,' her response said.
She previously acknowledged issues with the book in a July interview with the Sun Sentinel and said she would stop citing it.
Peffer denied that she 'ignored' the Judicial Ethics Advisory Committee's training on campaign ethics as the notice of charges alleged and denied that she 'helped facilitate the former employee's farce,' according to her response.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


The Hill
23 minutes ago
- The Hill
Trade group asks Supreme Court to limit Mississippi's social media law
An internet trade group asked the Supreme Court Wednesday to block Mississippi from enforcing its age-verification law against nine major social media platforms. NetChoice asked the justices for an emergency intervention after the 5 th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals last week without explanation lifted a block that had protected platforms like Facebook and Instagram from the new requirements. 'In a one-sentence order, the Fifth Circuit upended the First Amendment rights of Mississippi citizens seeking to access fully protected speech across social media websites,' NetChoice wrote. The existing block had prevented Mississippi from enforcing the law against nine NetChoice members covered by the law: Facebook, Instagram, YouTube, X, Snapchat, Reddit, Pinterest, Nextdoor and Dreamwitdth. Justice Samuel Alito, who by default handles emergency requests arising from the 5 th Circuit, ordered Mississippi to respond within a week. Alito could then act on the request alone or refer it to the full court for a vote. Mississippi's law requires social media companies to verify users' age and require minors to have express consent from a parent or guardian to use the platform. Covered websites must also work to mitigate minors' exposure to harmful material, and violations carry a $10,000 fine. It was originally set to go into effect on July 1, 2024, the same day the Supreme Court decided NetChoice's First Amendment challenges to Florida and Texas laws that regulate social media companies over accusations of political censorship. The Florida and Texas disputes involve what is known as a facial challenge, meaning NetChoice argues the laws are unconstitutional across the board. The Supreme Court's decision sent the cases back to lower courts with guidance for how to analyze the laws. In Mississippi, however, the judge's most recent injunction did not block the state's law facially. An appointee of the younger former President Bush, U.S. District Judge Halil Suleyman Ozerden only blocked the state's law as applied to NetChoice's members, which involves a different First Amendment analysis. NetChoice argued the 5 th Circuit's lack of explanation in lifting the judge's order is sufficient reason on its own for the Supreme Court to intervene. And regardless, the trade group says the block is needed to protect free speech as the litigation progresses. 'Yet, in stark contrast to the two extensively reasoned district court opinions in this case, the Fifth Circuit's order (entered less than an hour after Respondent submitted a reply brief) explains nothing. This is particularly troubling in the context of a decision with sudden and sweeping implications for accessing fully protected speech,' NetChoice wrote in the application.
Yahoo
25 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Donald Trump Won't Absolutely Love That He May Have Just Handed an Emmy to Stephen Colbert
The video plays like a cave painting from the Neolithic era or, even more distantly, from when late-night television still mattered: Stephen Colbert sits in the host chair and makes amends with Donald Trump. 'I want to apologize to you because I've said a few things about you over the years that are, in polite company, perhaps unforgivable,' the Late Show host tells him. 'I hope you'll accept my apology.' More from The Hollywood Reporter The NEA Is Under Attack. If You Work in The Entertainment Industry, That Should Scare You. Jimmy Fallon Addresses Colbert Cancellation: "I Don't Like What's Going on One Bit" Stephen Colbert's Late-Night Allies and Famous Friends Make Cameos on 'The Late Show' After Cancellation 'Accepted,' Trump says, as he notes that Colbert has also said nice things. That moment unfolded a decade ago on the set of The Late Show With Stephen Colbert, before Trump had yet to run in a single 2016 primary. Last week, a very different Trump-coded scene unfolded at the Ed Sullivan Theater in New York, as Colbert told a restive audience the show was being canceled after his contract expired at the end of next season. This time, Colbert, who's been regaling us on late night since he was hired on the Craig Kilborn-led Daily Show in 1997, had nothing to apologize for and, if anything, might have demanded an apology: the timing smacked of a separate CBS acquiescence to Trump. No one can say for sure if it played a role, of course, but Colbert had just called out parent Paramount's decision to settle a head-scratching 60 Minutes lawsuit by the president for $16 million as it awaits approval for a merger with Skydance. 'I don't know if anything, anything will repair my trust in this company but, just taking a stab at it, I'd say $16 million would help,' Colbert sub-tweeted Trump in his monologue, the latest in a long line of jibes aimed at the White House occupant. Trump volleyed on Truth Social on Friday: 'I absolutely love that Colbert got fired. His talent was even less than his ratings.' But in a battle between a jokester and a man who doesn't find him funny, Colbert may have the last laugh: He could win an Emmy thanks to The Donald. The Late Show With Stephen Colbert has never won any Emmy in its previous nine seasons despite some notable streaks of excellence. (It has been nominated 31 times over that period.) For much of that, it competed in late-night's top category against Last Week Tonight With John Oliver, which Emmy voters love the way Oliver loves a minor-league baseball team. Every year from 2017-22, Colbert went up against his fellow Daily Show alum as rival nominees in the outstanding variety talk category, and every year Oliver beat him. Then in 2023 Colbert seemed to catch a break when Oliver's show was shuffled off to outstanding variety sketch series under some jerry-rigged new rules designed to fill out that category … only for The Daily Show With Trevor Noah to beat him. In 2024, Colbert finally seemed poised to break through with Noah gone from TDS — but Colbert's old boss Jon Stewart had come back for a weekly hosting spot, and so that beat him. (Colbert did win the top Emmy a couple times back in the days of The Colbert Report, pre-CBS and pre-Trump.) This year, we seemed headed to a TDS-over-Late Show outcome once more, even with the nominee field shrunk from five just a few years ago down to three thanks to fewer submissions. Stewart has been clicking on all cylinders and given TDS its highest ratings in 10 years as he was again nominated alongside Colbert and Jimmy Kimmel. There was little reason to think Emmy voters would break with precedent and vote for Colbert. Then came the Trump post. Whether the president actually had a hand in the cancellation matters less than the fact that Emmys voters see a partisan battle in the firing. An Emmy won't change public policy on immigration and Medicaid. But it's one of the few ways liberal Hollywood can stick it to the leader they loathe. They have done that before, particularly in this category, choosing Oliver, the most stridently political and anti-Trump of the bunch, over all his competitors. In fact, Oliver's show has never lost the top Emmy it was eligible for since Trump first became the Republican nominee in 2016 — an astonishing run of 9-0. But this may be Colbert's year too, especially if Stewart gives Colbert his props on his own TDS platform, as he already sharply did Monday night and could continue to in the next month ahead of final voting. (And if Colbert comedically leans into the cancellation, as he also did Monday.) That's especially true if this is Colbert's last chance for a traditional Emmy. What the comic does now is anyone's guess, but mainstream TV seems an unlikely path (more likely: YouTube with maybe some of the TDS gang post-merger). Colbert almost certainly won't retire, like another sixtysomething, Johnny Carson, did after his own 30 years on late-night came to an end. By the way, The Tonight Show Starring Johnny Carson won its first variety Emmy in its last year on the air. In a grand irony, if Trump's stance does give Colbert the Emmy the president will have enabled the host to win an honor that has saltily eluded him. (The Apprentice went 0 for 8.) And if Colbert did finally win for this show, he would gain an acceptance-speech platform of some 7 million TV viewers, and millions more online, all on and courtesy of the the network that just canceled him. Not to mention another year on said network with nothing to lose and plenty of time to target Trump even more. That's the thing about punching someone with a TV megaphone — they can punch back. Colbert and the GOP have actually been in a battle since long before Trump, going back to the comic's satirizing of Bill O'Reilly and other Fox News personalities on TDS and then, explosively, at the WHCD in 2006, when Colbert's skewering of then-President George W. Bush literally sent some staffers walking out of the room. In fact, Colbert has been a thorn in the side of the GOP longer than arguably any popular entertainer — so long that when he started out, the leading Republican figure was Newt Gingrich, opposing President Bill Clinton. That jabbing has gotten Colbert where he is. The WHCD put Colbert Report on the map early in its run and then his turn to political barbs fuel-injected the sputtering Late Show With Stephen Colbert in 2017 shortly after Colbert jumped to broadcast, eventually sending the host to the top of late night. So the trophy Trump is claiming here is a rich one, nearly 30 years in the making, on behalf of several generations of Republican leaders. Of course, the trophy Colbert could wind up winning may be even sweeter. Best of The Hollywood Reporter 'The Studio': 30 Famous Faces Who Play (a Version of) Themselves in the Hollywood-Based Series 22 of the Most Shocking Character Deaths in Television History A 'Star Wars' Timeline: All the Movies and TV Shows in the Franchise Solve the daily Crossword


Boston Globe
2 hours ago
- Boston Globe
Rhode Island beachfront homeowner sues coastal regulator over conditions of permit to repair storm damage
Related : The 81-page complaint arrived nearly a year after the foundation and Welch, in a Get Rhode Map A weekday briefing from veteran Rhode Island reporters, focused on the things that matter most in the Ocean State. Enter Email Sign Up In a July 2024 initial Advertisement In a memorandum for a preliminary injunction in the latest lawsuit filed on Monday, Welch alleged the CMRC, without waiting for the Supreme Court to weigh in on the law, tried to impose terms of the statue as conditions of the permit – or 'assent' – he needs to lawfully complete repairs along the coastline of his property. Advertisement 'The CRMC granted the Assent with conditions requiring Stilts to record a public beach on its land up to ten feet landward of the recognizable high tide line, without just compensation, and other conditions granting the CRMC a right to search Stilts' property 'at all times,'' the memorandum states. Indeed, the lawsuit also alleges the CRMC's permit requires Welch give the agency access to the property to inspect for compliance, with the CRMC having the right to 'inspect said project at all times including, but not limited to, the construction completion, and all times thereafter.' Taken together, the conditions unconstitutionally require Welch 'to submit to an uncompensated taking of real property and to unwarranted searches, to obtain a permit,' according to the lawsuit. 'The government can't hold property owners hostage, demanding they surrender their constitutional rights just to get a permit to maintain their own home,' J. David Breemer, a senior attorney at the Pacific Legal Foundation, said in a statement. 'Rhode Island is essentially coercing property owners: give up your land and your Fourth Amendment protections, or you can't repair storm damage to your own house.' According to the lawsuit, Welch owns four parcels, one with a small, partially elevated home. A storm in January 2023 damaged a stairway at the home, moved boulders out from under the home, and damaged the dunes and dune fencing, the filing states. Welch applied for an assent from the CRMC, which the council granted in February 2023, the lawsuit states. But the agency later issued a cease and desist order after 'someone apparently complained to the CRMC' in the spring that the work did not comply with the assent, according to the lawsuit. Advertisement The CRMC later claimed boulders had been moved beyond the scope of the assent, and that there had also been 'unauthorized dune renourishment … and erection of snow fencing around the dunes near the home,' the lawsuit states. Welch appealed the alleged violation and following a June 2024 hearing, the parties reached an agreement, under which Welch agreed to apply for a new assent and the CRMC agreed to withdraw the cease and desist order and 'waive almost all fines,' according to the filing. The CRMC then granted a new assent in December 2024, with the conditions Welch is now challenging in the latest lawsuit, the complaint states. Without the assent, Welch will be unable to lawfully complete the repairs 'which will trigger substantial CRMC fines,' the memorandum states. The CRMC did not immediately return a request for comment on Wednesday, and has not yet responded to the lawsuit's allegations in court. Christopher Gavin can be reached at