Hawaii’s challenge to its own restrictions on AI-generated deepfakes is sparking a spirited debate. Critics say these rules curtail free speech, yet many worry that without limits, AI deepfakes could undermine our democratic process.
James Madison once stressed that a well-informed public is the cornerstone of self-governance. Today, as we move through 2025, our digital landscape presents fresh challenges where AI and deepfakes blur the line between fact and fabrication.
Social media platforms often amplify extreme content, with algorithms boosting controversial posts through added visibility and monetisation. This environment makes it tougher to separate truth from fiction.
In regions like Gaza and Ukraine, verifying the authenticity of media has become more urgent than ever. Misleading content can have serious consequences for public safety and institutional credibility.
Historically, authoritarian regimes have harnessed the power of media to destabilise their opponents. Today, the rise of AI deepfakes poses a similar risk, echoing past instances of politically charged propaganda.
Take, for example, Steve Bannon’s concept of ‘flooding the zone’ with misinformation—a tactic that can overwhelm the media and weaken democratic institutions.
Hawaii’s Act 191 is designed to stem the tide of deceptive political content by requiring clear disclaimers, with penalties for non-compliance. However, organisations like the Babylon Bee contend that satirical content should remain under the umbrella of free speech.
The core of this debate is finding the right balance: protecting free speech while preventing the potential harm of misleading AI-generated content. Although satire is a time-honoured protected art, lifelike fakes without appropriate disclaimers risk crossing a dangerous line.
Existing U.S. legal frameworks already curb harmful forms of expression, and Hawaii’s new law extends these safeguards into the digital realm.
Protecting democracy means being thoughtful about how we share and consume information. Technology should bolster informed public discourse rather than erode it.
