R.I. poised to join N.H. with ban on deepfakes within 90 days of elections unless disclosed
The action comes as the
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
'This could have been a pyrrhic victory on our part if the Senate hadn't stripped out that language,' said John M. Marion, executive director of Common Cause Rhode Island. 'It's a good thing that Rhode Island is trying to stay ahead of the curve on requiring disclosure of deepfakes in elections.'
Marion said Rhode Island has a history of 'ahead of the curve' on campaign finance disclosure. He noted that in 2012, the state enacted legislation requiring the disclosure of independent expenditures in the wake of the
Advertisement
The Rhode Island bill would prohibit rival candidates, political parties, and political action committees from creating and publishing recordings or videos that have been manipulated or generated by AI within 90 days of elections. But the prohibition would not apply if that manipulation or use of AI is disclosed, and the prohibition would not apply to 'synthetic media that constitutes satire or parody.'
The legislation allows candidates who are the targets of such 'synthetic media' to seek injunctions and to file civil lawsuits seeking damages.
Ilana Beller, organizing manager for the democracy team at Public Citizen, based in Washington, D.C., called Rhode Island's 'synthetic media' bill 'a huge win for democracy.'
She noted that deepfakes depict a person saying or doing things they never actually said or did.
'That is a form of fraud,' Beller said. 'The concern here is that, with this new ability to create deepfakes using AI, folks are being given the tools to create an alternative reality that looks factual to other people. We don't want voters to make these critical democratic decisions based on something fraudulent.'
The American Civil Liberties Union of Rhode Island and Common Cause agree on many legislative matters. But the ACLU opposed the 'synthetic media' bill, saying the group appreciates the legislation's intent but fears it could be used to infringe on First Amendment rights.
'In order to ensure that debate on public issues is, in the words of the US Supreme Court, 'uninhibited, robust, and wide-open,' the First Amendment provides special protection to even allegedly false statements about public officials and public figures,' the ACLU said in written testimony. 'AI-generated campaign communications are entitled to these protections.'
Advertisement
The ACLU acknowledged that free speech rights are not unlimited in the political arena. But it argued that the First Amendment does not allow the government to declare any image or recording fraudulent if it fits the bill's definition of 'synthetic media.'
As an example, the ACLU noted that science-fiction Netflix series '
The Senate passed the bill
The two legislators who voted against the legislation — Representatives Jennifer A. Stewart and Cherie L. Cruz, both Pawtucket Democrats — said they shared the ACLU's concerns about First Amendment freedoms.
When asked about First Amendment concerns, Marion said, 'This is a bill about disclosure of the use of AI, not the prohibition of the use of AI. Courts have consistently upheld the use of disclosure in elections.'
Marion said the number of states passing deepfake regulations is growing rapidly. 'It's incredibly popular and bipartisan at a time when almost all election legislation is passed on a party line vote,' he said.
Advertisement
He noted that in 2024 a
Secretary Gregg M. Amore, a Democrat, pushed for the legislation. 'As artificial intelligence becomes more and more prevalent in our society — especially in the world of elections — we have a responsibility to do everything we can to ensure that voters have access to truthful, accurate information," Amore said in a statement this week.
Senator Louis P. DiPalma, the Middletown Democrat who introduced the 'synthetic media' bill, said he was not surprised to read a recent New York Times story, '
The article reports that a Russian influence operation using AI tainted the first round of last year's presidential election in Romania, and a court there nullified that result, forcing a new vote and marking the first major election in which AI played a decisive role in the outcome. The article also includes the AI-generated image purporting to show a Canadian prime minister candidate in a pool with disgraced financier Jeffrey Epstein.
'I am surprised it has not happened more in the United States,' DiPalma said. 'It's going to happen. But this shows we can get ahead of the power curve once in a while.'
The bill's House sponsor was Representative Jacquelyn Baginski, the Cranston Democrat who chairs the state House Innovation, Internet and Technology Committee.
The General Assembly also recently passed
Advertisement
'Rapidly evolving and easily accessible AI technology necessitate this update as celebrities and everyday citizens have been the victims of image-based sexual abuse and exploitation,' said Senator Elaine J. Morgan, a Hopkinton Republican. 'Deepfake pornographic images can cause enduring emotional harm, financial hardship, and permanent damage to the reputation of its victims.'
Edward Fitzpatrick can be reached at
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New York Times
an hour ago
- New York Times
Can Democrats Find Their Way on Immigration?
The Democrats onstage saw themselves as morally courageous. American voters, it turned out, saw a group of politicians hopelessly out of touch. Standing side by side at a primary debate in June 2019, nine of the party's candidates for president were asked to raise their hand if they wanted to decriminalize illegal border crossings. Only one of them held still. Six years later, the party remains haunted by that tableau. It stands both as a vivid demonstration of a leftward policy shift on immigration that many prominent Democratic lawmakers and strategists now say they deeply regret, and as a marker of how sharply the country was moving in the other direction. Last year, 55 percent of Americans told Gallup that they supported a decrease in immigration, nearly twice as many as in 2020, and the first time since 2005 that a majority had said so. The embrace of a more punitive approach to illegal immigration includes not only white voters but also working-class Latinos, whose support Democrats had long courted with liberal border policies. 'When you have the most Latino district in the country outside of Puerto Rico vote for Trump, that should be a wake-up call for the Democratic Party,' said Representative Vicente Gonzalez of Texas, who saw Mr. Trump win every county in his district along the border with Mexico. 'This is a Democratic district that's been blue for over a century.' Want all of The Times? Subscribe.
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
There's a sinister reason for Democrats' collapsing pride in America
One of America's two great political parties no longer thinks of itself as proudly American. As recently as 20 years ago, Democrats were almost as keen on their country as Republicans were, according to Gallup polling. In 2005, fully 81 per cent of Democrats said they were 'very' or 'extremely' proud of being American. Today that number is just 36 per cent. Republicans have hardly changed in that time: 93 per cent were 'very' or 'extremely' proud 20 years ago, and 92 per cent feel that way now. Their national pride didn't decline much even during the Democratic administrations of Barack Obama and Joe Biden. Democrats have grown more disenchanted with America whenever Donald Trump has been president, but their alienation isn't only about him. There was a time when even the Communist Party USA went out of its way to present itself as patriotic, insisting that 'Communism is 20th-century Americanism'. The 21st-century Democratic Party is rather less eager to present itself as characteristically American. If the Gallup surveys provide one indication of a post-American mentality taking root among Democrats, recent events supply further evidence. When illegal immigrants clash with law-enforcement in cities like Los Angeles, many Democrats, including office holders, side with the foreign lawbreakers. There are some 212 Democrats currently serving in Congress, but only seven voted for a House of Representatives resolution condemning the recent violent protests in LA. The Democrats have come to see themselves as a party that represents populations other than just American citizens. The charismatic 33-year-old who is the Democratic party's nominee for mayor of New York City, Zohran Mamdani, is himself an American citizen. But in 2013 his mother, the filmmaker Mira Nair, was quite emphatic in telling the Hindustan Times that Zohran 'is not an [American] at all. He was born in Uganda, raised between India and America. … He thinks of himself as a Ugandan and as an Indian.' That may have changed since he acquired US citizenship in 2018. Then again, his mother was already a US citizen when she made her boast to the Indian newspaper. Mamdani's father, for his part, is a professor at Columbia University renowned, the New York Times notes, as 'a major figure in the field of post-colonialism'. Mamdani might very well tell Gallup he's very or extremely proud to be an American, if he gets called during the next poll. But it's still fair to suggest that a Democratic Party already drifting in an ideologically 'post-colonial' and post-American direction is apt to accelerate down that path if the son of a top post-colonial academic becomes one of its future leaders. At the elite level with the Mamdanis and at the street level with the riots against Immigration and Customs Enforcement, the Left side of America's political spectrum is consistently committed to breaking down the connections between citizenship and the nation-state. Instead of the American federal government serving as an instrument of its citizens, the Left envisions a government administered by an elite without strong national loyalties, which rules in the name of humanity. To their minds, citizenship and national pride are anachronisms, indeed barbarities, that prevent the realisation of a more just, redistributive, 'post-colonial' society – the kind of thing that Mamdani's mayoral campaign might well have in mind with its call to 'shift the tax burden … to more expensive homes in richer and whiter neighbourhoods.' Republicans have a steady sense of pride in being American because their view of politics prioritises country over party: America doesn't stop being a source of pride simply because Barack Obama or Joe Biden is president. Democrats, however, clearly have a weaker attachment to the country in general, and that attachment is more party-dependent than it is for Republicans, according to the data. This suggests that what is a source of pride for Democrats is how well America's government approximates the Left's post-national ideal. Trump moved steadily away from that ideal during his first term in office, causing Democrats' degree of pride in America to slump, dropping every year to a low of 42 per cent of Democrats who said they were very or extremely proud of their country in 2020. (The number then shot up to 62 per cent – still 25 points below the Republican mark – in Biden's first year.) In his second term, Trump has asserted national distinctions against transnational ideals still more aggressively, triggering a corresponding collapse in Democrats' sense of pride in America, to today's record lows. For Democrats, 'national pride' means being proud of transcending the old nation. This wasn't always the case. For all the bad publicity Democrats rightly received for the antics of their anti-American, radical Left-wing during the Vietnam War, the party had a patriotic mainstream. The high levels of pride in America recorded by Gallup's polls of Democrats 20 years ago attest to how long that mainstream survived. But since then the party has adopted a new outlook, fostered by a highly educated elite. This first cost the party much of its working-class white support and is now eroding its working-class Hispanic and black support, while Democrats have picked up new donors and publicists from the ranks of old guard Republicans with an internationalist outlook. Yet this influx of a few libertarians and neoconservatives isn't nearly enough to offset the loss of working-class voters, and what's worse, it contributes nothing to restoring the party's feel for the nation – quite the opposite, in fact. One of America's two parties is now a world party instead. Yet voters, especially Americans, prefer the nation to the world. Daniel McCarthy is the editor in chief of Modern Age Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.
Boston Globe
3 hours ago
- Boston Globe
Without compromise, American democracy has no future
Get The Gavel A weekly SCOTUS explainer newsletter by columnist Kimberly Atkins Stohr. Enter Email Sign Up The following day, Bacon announced that he'd also had enough of the intolerant partisanship dominating Congress. The former Air Force brigadier general, Advertisement Tillis and Bacon aren't rebels. They just don't believe their job is to elevate hardline ideological rigidity above all other considerations. In that sense they are like former Senators Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona and Joe Manchin of West Virginia, two Democrats who likewise found themselves demonized for occasionally making common cause with members of the opposing party. Last year, they too chose not to run for reelection. Advertisement Of all the developments that have sickened American politics in this generation, the abandonment of democratic civility and the resulting hostility to compromise are the most toxic. The virtues of moderation and magnanimity, the willingness to engage respectfully with others' views, the assumption that individuals with contrary opinions may be wrong but are not evil — without these, our political institutions cannot function. The first and most vital task of liberal democratic politics is to accommodate strong differences without tearing society apart. But that becomes impossible when conciliation is regarded as treachery — and when politics stops focusing on persuasion and debate and becomes obsessed instead with defeating enemies by any means necessary. Granted, Yet compromise has been the lifeblood of the American experiment from its earliest days. The very possibility of self‑government is grounded in the presumption that citizens with intensely held but divergent views can find ways to cooperate. The American founders knew perfectly well that there would always be deep disputes over principles, tactics, means, and ends. That is why they regarded compromise not as a necessary evil but as an essential element of our constitutional system. Advertisement 'Those who hammer out painful deals perform the hardest and, often, highest work of politics,' the American thinker Jonathan Rauch wrote in In ' America's independence holiday is a good time to remember that some of this nation's greatest achievements emerged from political give‑and‑take, not from unilateral assertions of power. The Constitution itself was born of compromise. At the convention in 1787, delegates were deadlocked between a population-based legislature (favored by large states) and one that would treat all states equally (favored by small states). Had the impasse not been broken by what was later called the Great Compromise — a bicameral Congress with proportional representation in the House and equal representation in the Senate — the convention would have collapsed and the fragile confederation of states might never have endured. American progress has depended time and again on the ability of political leaders to transcend their partisan, sectional, or ideological loyalties and reach a compromise all sides could live with. Advertisement Consider the bargain struck in 1790 between Alexander Hamilton of New York and Virginia's Thomas Jefferson and James Madison. Hamilton wanted the federal government to assume all state debts, which would amount to a dramatic expansion of national power. That prospect alarmed Southern leaders like Jefferson and Madison — but they agreed not to derail the plan in exchange for locating the new national capital on the Maryland-Virginia border instead of in one of the major commercial centers of the North. Though each side had to swallow a bitter pill, the deal achieved two vital ends: national creditworthiness through debt assumption, and a seat of government accessible to both North and South. And it showed that even foundational questions about the scope of federal power could be resolved through negotiation rather than force. Congress similarly chose compromise over caustic stalemate in 1964, with a Civil Rights Act that combined Southern concessions on federalism with Northern demands to outlaw segregation. The law was far from perfect, but it transformed American society and politics. It passed despite the opposition of hard-core segregationists, thanks to a bipartisan coalition hammered together by President Lyndon Johnson and Senator Everett Dirksen, the Republican minority leader — proof that compromise, when linked to moral conviction, can dismantle entrenched injustice. To mention one more, recall the 1997 budget agreement. When Republicans under Newt Gingrich won control of the US House for the first time in decades, their ' surpluses . It was one more illustration of how ideological opponents, if they are motivated to do so, can find ways to compromise. Advertisement None of this is to suggest that all compromises are good. That would be as ridiculous as insisting that any compromise is bad. The point, rather, is that without the ability to compromise — and without the civility and mutual respect that make that possible — our democratic republic cannot survive. Maybe we've already crossed that point. Is there any reason to be optimistic about a Congress in which fanatics like Marjorie Taylor Greene and Bernie Sanders flourish while thoughtful legislators such as Thom Tillis and Kyrsten Sinema are marginalized until they resign? In ' What would have happened if those men hadn't been able to reason together — if they had abandoned all efforts to persuade and had resorted instead to invective and intimidation? The American experiment might have ended before it even got off the ground. If today's leaders continue to scorn compromise and civility, ours may be the generation that brings it crashing back to earth. Advertisement Jeff Jacoby can be reached at
