SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
California Court Decision Misses the Mark on the Threat of Political Deepfakes
A federal district court in California has issued a preliminary injunction against a California state law, supported by Public Citizen, that aimed to curb deceptive AI-generated deepfakes that could influence the outcome of elections.
The court said that the law doesn’t take an adequately narrow approach to restricting such content, thereby infringing on First Amendment-protected speech or compelling unduly burdensome speech to avoid liability.
Robert Weissman, co-president of Public Citizen, issued the following statement:
“The court’s decision misses the fundamental problem with deepfakes, which is not simply that they make false claims but that they show candidates saying or doing things that the candidates did not say or do. The court suggests that a targeted candidate can just respond with counter speech – but that is not true, where the candidate has to ask the public not believe their eyes and ears. For this unprecedented kind of fraudulent deception, disclosure *is* the least speech-restrictive solution that can advance the government’s compelling interest in preserving election integrity.
“There are particular features of the California law – such as the requirement to label satire and font size required for disclosures – that appeared to color the court’s decision. And the court recognized that labeling requirements, if narrowly tailored, could pass constitutional muster. This decision therefore should not become an excuse for inaction against the threat of deepfakes.
“There’s nothing about the First Amendment that ties our hands in addressing fraud and a here-and-now threat to democracy.”
Public Citizen is a nonprofit consumer advocacy organization that champions the public interest in the halls of power. We defend democracy, resist corporate power and work to ensure that government works for the people - not for big corporations. Founded in 1971, we now have 500,000 members and supporters throughout the country.
(202) 588-1000LATEST NEWS
Cornell Study Shows LNG Worse for Climate Than Coal
"LNG is not a bridge fuel to clean energy," said one expert. "It's a highway to climate hell."
Oct 03, 2024
On the heels of Hurricane Helene devastating the U.S. Southeast and sparking fresh calls for action on the fossil fuel-driven climate emergency, a long-awaited study revealed Thursday that the planet-heating pollution from liquefied natural gas is worse than that of coal.
"Liquefied natural gas (LNG) exports from the United States have risen dramatically since the LNG-export ban was lifted in 2016, and the United States is now the world's largest exporter," wrote Cornell University scientist Robert Howarth, who analyzed the greenhouse gas footprint of LNG produced in and exported from the U.S.
Howarth found that "the greenhouse gas footprint for LNG as a fuel source is 33% greater than that for coal" in terms of its 20-year global warming potential, and "even considered on the time frame of 100 years after emission... which severely understates the climatic damage of methane, the LNG footprint equals or exceeds that of coal."
Advocates of bold climate action welcomed the formal publication of what Third Act founder Bill McKibbencalled a "crucial paper."
"LNG exports present HUGE risks to our planet and climate—and we need to reject any attempts to expand them!"
The study, published online by the journal Energy Science & Engineering, follows U.S. President Joe Biden pausing approvals for all LNG exports to non-fair trade agreement countries and comes a month out from the presidential election, in which Democratic Vice President Kalama Harris is facing Big Oil-backed Republican former President Donald Trump.
"This is a HUGE deal for the Biden administration's ongoing review of LNG exports," said Jamie Henn, executive director of Fossil Free Media and a founder of 350.org, sharing Howarth's findings on social media. Climate campaigners are calling on the Biden-Harris administration to make the January pause permanent.
"This should be the final nail in the coffin for the false narrative that LNG was somehow a climate solution," Henn added in a statement. "This now peer-reviewed paper demonstrates that LNG is worse for the climate than coal, let alone clean energy alternatives. Approving more LNG exports is clearly incompatible with the public interest."
As Henn and others acknowledged, Howarth's research has been targeted by journalists and the fossil fuel industry.
"This paper has been widely discussed, revised, and is now peer-reviewed and published," said Jason Rylander, legal director for the Center for Biological Diversity's Climate Law Institute. "LNG is not a bridge fuel to clean energy. It's a highway to climate hell."
Alex Walker, climate finance program manager at the Canadian group Environmental Defense, also responded to the research by stressing that, contrary to claims by the fossil fuel industry and its political allies, "LNG is not a bridge fuel."
Congressman Sean Casten (D-Ill.) said on social media that "there is no environmental case for increased U.S. LNG exports."
Howarth is on the board of directors of the Food & Water Watch, which similarly pointed to the paper as further proof that "LNG exports present HUGE risks to our planet and climate—and we need to reject any attempts to expand them!"
Cassidy DiPaola, communications director at Fossil Free Media, declared Thursday that "the science is clear."
"There's no place for LNG in a clean energy future," DiPaola said. "It's time to double down on truly clean alternatives like wind, solar, and energy efficiency."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Biden Says US, Israel 'Discussing' Attack on Iran's Oil Infrastructure
"If the president was intentionally trying to help Trump win, what would be the difference between how he's acting now?" asked one observer, who noted how Biden's saber-rattling drove up the price of oil.
Oct 03, 2024
After saying Wednesday that he would not back Israeli strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities, U.S. President Joe Biden on Thursday said his administration and Israel are weighing the possibility of an attack on Iran's oil infrastructure in response to this week's missile barrage targeting the key American ally.
Asked by a reporter outside the White House in Washington, D.C. if he supported an Israeli attack on Iran's oil infrastructure following Tuesday's missile attack on Israel, Biden said, "We're discussing that."
"There's nothing that's going to happen today," he added.
The price of crude oil shot up 5% to $77 per barrel on Thursday following Biden's remarks.
Mulling the possible implications of higher oil prices on next month's U.S. presidential election between Democratic Vice President Kamala Harris and former Republican President Donald Trump, Jacobin's Branko Mercetic said on social media Thursday, "If the president was intentionally trying to help Trump win, what would be the difference between how he's acting now?"
Iran's missile strike, in which no Israelis were killed or seriously harmed, came in response to a series of Israeli assassinations of senior Hamas and Hezbollah leaders in Iran and Lebanon.
Responding to the Iranian attack, Israel Defense Forces spokesperson Rear Adm. Daniel Hagari said Tuesday that there will be "consequences" and that Israel would "will act in the time and place that we choose."
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu vowed Iran "will pay a heavy price" for its attack.
Iran, meanwhile, warned that any Israeli attack on its territory would result in a "stronger response" than Tuesday's strike.
Some Republican members of U.S. Congress are pushing Biden to attack Iran.
"It is not enough to issue statements," Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said on Tuesday.
"The Biden administration has repeatedly threatened Iran with 'severe consequences' for its campaign of terror against Israel and the United States, but failed to impose them," he added. "It has pledged 'ironclad' support for Israel, only to delay and withhold the security assistance that would give this pledge any weight."
Biden's comments came as Israel advised residents of 20 towns and villages in southern Lebanon to evacuate, suggesting that Israeli forces could ramp up their invasion of its northern neighbor, from which Hezbollah has been launching rockets in support of Palestinian resistance against Israel's war on Gaza—for which the key U.S. ally is on trial for genocide at the International Court of Justice.
Thousands of Lebanese have been killed or wounded by Israeli attacks. More than 148,000 Palestinians have been killed or injured by Israeli forces in Gaza.
Keep ReadingShow Less
William Barber Says Presidential Debates 'Failing' the Poor
"We should really be talking about how to abolish the majority of poverty, because we know what would happen if we did have serious living minimum wage and healthcare," Barber said.
Oct 03, 2024
William Barber, a bishop and co-chair of the Poor People's Campaign, said in an interview published Thursday that U.S. presidential debates, and the race more broadly, was "failing" the poor, whose needs and concerns he said aren't being addressed.
About 38 million people in the U.S. live in poverty, roughly 11.5% of the population, as determined by the federal government. PPC says that one-third of the electorate, or 85 million people, are poor or low-income.
"We're talking about poverty that is not an anomaly among one group of people. But in fact, is across the country, in every community, in every city," Barber told USA Today. "We should really be talking about how to abolish the majority of poverty, because we know what would happen if we did have serious living minimum wage and healthcare."
Both @KamalaHarris & @realDonaldTrump say they want to represent working people. Why not accept @RevDrBarber’s challenge to debate the causes of America’s exceptional poverty & the policies that could end it. https://t.co/TIjUvOof0O
— Jonathan Wilson-Hartgrove (@wilsonhartgrove) October 3, 2024
PPC was inspired by a 1968 movement of the same name organized by Martin Luther King Jr. and led by allies after his assassination. They set up a 3,000-person protest camp on Washington Mall in the spring of that year, staying for six weeks.
Barber, a Black pastor and political organizer from North Carolina, was among those who led the relaunch in 2018—Poor People's Campaign: A National Call for a Moral Revival—which started with demonstrations in Washington, D.C., and at statehouses across the country.
Barber, who recently wrote a book about white poverty, has said that there's a "deafening silence" on the part of the media with regard to economic justice in the U.S.
Barber told USA Today that the debate moderators, as well as the presidential and vice presidential candidates, have failed to address it. He said Tuesday's vice presidential debate should have featured a question on a living minimum wage.
"To not have that as a major question and drill it down and make these candidates answer the question is a failing, we believe of the debate system," Barber said.
The current federal minimum wage is $7.25, set in 2009. Barber has frequently expressed outrage that Congress hasn't acted to raise it in the last 15 years.
In 2021, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) moved to raise the minimum wage to $15, via an amendment to the Covid-19 stimulus package, but all 50 Republican senators and eight members of the Democratic caucus voted it down.
Barber noted that Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz, the Democratic vice presidential nominee, raised the need to expand the child tax credit and for affordable housing in the debate, but said the moderators should have explicitly asked about the needs of poor people.
"I think there's a great failure of the press, of those who planned the debate, and even the politicians themselves, for not putting millions of people at the center of the political debate," Barber said.
Barber in fact recommended a reform to the debate format in which nonpartisan experts lay out facts on an issue before candidates speak—and people who are affected by an issue, rather than professional moderators, ask the questions.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular