Hawaii Deepfake Election Law is Unconstitutional, Court Says (1)

Conservative satirical news publication The Babylon Bee LLC won a court order Friday striking down Hawaii’s law regulating AI deepfakes during elections as an unconstitutional violation of the First Amendment.

The Hawaii law, Act 191, is “presumptively invalid” because it discriminates based on content and speaker, “and, in doing so, restricts constitutionally protected political speech,” Judge Shanlyn A.S. Park wrote in the order.

The judge, a Joe Biden appointee for the US District Court for the District of Hawaii, entered a permanent injunction prohibiting the state from enforcing Act 191, which was signed into law in 2024.

The Hawaii Attorney General’s Office, which is defending the law in court, said the department is reviewing the decision and declined to provide any further comment.

“The court is right to put a stop to Hawaii’s war against political memes and satire,” The Babylon Bee’s attorney Mathew Hoffmann of Alliance Defending Freedom said in a statement. “The First Amendment doesn’t allow Hawaii to choose what political speech is acceptable.”

The law follows a number of similar attempts by states to regulate the proliferation of AI-generated deepfakes, which can deceptively depict people saying or doing things that did not occur.

Act 191 prohibits anyone from “recklessly distributing” any “materially deceptive media” involving candidates for office and elected official during election season, from February to November. Violators can face criminal charges.

The law has a safe harbor provision when using a disclaimer on the deepfake content that meets certain specifications, and has carve-outs for broadcasters, cable operations, and other service providers.

The Babylon Bee and a Hawaii resident sued to block the law last June, arguing it violated the First and Fourteenth Amendment punishing political satire websites that seek to use deepfakes. The satire publication succeeded in blocking a similar anti-deepfake law in California.

The law fundamentally “regulates speech based on its subject matter” because it applies to communication relating to electoral candidates and topics that may appear as a question on the ballot, Park’s ruling said.

And the law isn’t saved by any of the historical exceptions the the First Amendment, like fraud or defamation, Park said, because it prohibits speech that has a “risk of harming” an election official or candidate.

The judge said the law also violates the Fourteenth Amendment because it’s unconstitutionally vague, setting up “an inherently subjective assessment for enforcement agencies.”

Alliance Defending Freedom represents The Babylon Bee.

The case is The Babylon Bee LLC v. Lopez, D. Haw., No. 1:25-cv-00234, 1/30/26.