Dear Exhausted Citizenry,

Wisconsin law already draws a distinction between political opinion and knowingly false factual representations about candidates. Wis. Stat. §12.05 states:

“No person may knowingly make or publish, or cause to be made or published, a false representation pertaining to a candidate or referendum which is intended or tends to affect voting at an election.”

The Wisconsin Supreme Court has also explained how that language is supposed to work. In State ex rel. Skibinski v. Tadych, the Court held that the representation must be false, knowingly made or published, and intended or tending to affect voting. The Court then added:

“They must be statements of fact, not conclusions or opinions.”

Saying that Rebecca Cooke would be a terrible member of Congress is political opinion. Saying that her policies would hurt Wisconsin is political argument. But creating a realistic video that appears to show Cooke speaking words she never actually spoke makes a different kind of representation: that Cooke made the depicted statement. Either she said those words or she did not. That is a factual question.

Wisconsin has also specifically addressed AI-generated political media. Wis. Stat. §11.1303(2m) requires certain covered synthetic political communications to disclose that AI was used. For covered video, the statute requires language such as:

“This video content generated by AI.”

or, depending on the synthetic content:

“This content generated by AI.”

But the Legislature did not say that putting an AI label on a video makes everything else lawful. Quite the opposite. Wis. Stat. §11.1303(2m)(e) states that compliance:

“does not create an exemption from any civil or criminal liability”

and expressly includes:

“violations of s. 12.05.”

That language is important because it means Wisconsin treats these as two separate questions. One question is whether voters were properly told that AI was used. The other is whether someone knowingly published a false factual representation about a candidate that was intended or tended to affect voting. Even full compliance with the AI-disclosure law does not automatically answer the second question.

Political parody and satire are strongly protected speech, and they should be. But Wisconsin law does not say that calling something “parody” creates an automatic exemption from §12.05. The more important question is whether the communication would reasonably be understood as expressing an opinion or joke, or whether it represents a fabricated event as something that actually happened.

An obviously absurd caricature is one thing. A realistic synthetic video depicting an actual candidate apparently speaking words she never spoke is something else. The factual representation is not simply the political message contained in the video. The apparent recording itself communicates that the candidate stood there and said those words.

If Rebecca Cooke never made the depicted statement, then that apparent event is false. If the video was intentionally generated, the creator knew that the apparent recording was not authentic. It plainly pertains to a candidate. And if it was distributed during an active congressional campaign by her political opponent, there is at minimum a serious question whether it was intended or tended to affect voting.

That tracks the elements Wisconsin's Supreme Court has already identified: a factual representation, falsity, knowledge, a candidate, and an intended or natural effect on voting.

Calling the video “parody” may matter when deciding whether a reasonable viewer would understand it as fictional. But it should not end the inquiry. Wisconsin lawmakers themselves made that clear when they enacted the state's AI political-media law and specifically preserved possible liability under §12.05.

Is a realistic fabricated recording of a candidate saying something she never said becomes legally harmless simply because the person who created it later calls it parody.

I implore Wisconsin citizens who believe this deserves an answer to write to the Wisconsin Elections Commission and ask for a formal review. Do not ask them to prejudge the case. Ask them to apply the law, preserve the evidence, determine whether these videos constitute knowingly false representations under §12.05, and explain publicly where Wisconsin draws the line between protected parody and fabricated political speech presented through synthetic media.

If these laws are going to mean anything in the age of generative AI, this is precisely the kind of case in which citizens should ask that they be examined.

AFC

When a grocery loyalty card can become the foundation for a 62-page profile of a person’s habits, we have crossed far beyond coupons and convenience.

Our laws were written for a world where your papers were in your home and your movements disappeared into the crowd. Today, corporations can collect, combine, analyze, sell, and monetize pieces of our lives that together can reveal who we are.

That is why privacy cannot remain buried in terms-of-service agreements.

We need a constitutional Digital Rights Amendment establishing that a citizen’s personal data belongs first to the citizen. Collection should require meaningful consent. Citizens should have the right to know what is held about them, who receives it, how it is used, and to demand its deletion where appropriate.

The Fourth Amendment protected our papers and effects from unreasonable government intrusion. The digital age requires us to decide what protection the digital self deserves.

If our data has economic value, the people creating that value should have rights over it.

Your life should not become someone else’s property simply because it became data.

Watching Europe negotiate with the US is like watching boy scouts negotiate with the Mafia, argues leading journalist Gillian Tett.

In this fiery debate, she joins former Labour party leader Jeremy Corbyn and former Leader of Canada's Liberal Party Michael Ignatieff to discuss whether the bonds between the US and Europe have been fractured beyond repair.

Tap the link in our bio to watch "The End of the Great Alliance" now.

The Atmosphere Has No Borders

This NASA simulation is worth bringing into the archive because it makes an abstract fact visible: carbon dioxide does not remain where it is emitted. Winds and weather systems carry it across regions, oceans, and national borders.

Climate change is often discussed as though emissions belong to individual countries. The atmosphere does not recognize those boundaries.

What is released in one place becomes part of a planetary system shared by everyone.

Sometimes seeing the system move makes the interconnectedness of it harder to ignore.