A political satire video was “ridiculous” enough to be protected speech, a federal judge ruled, blocking Vermont’s first attempt to enforce its new AI-media law.
“The Court considers this video to have a ridiculous nature and finds that Vermont’s interest in protecting and preserving the integrity of the electoral process and related fraud is lower when the threat faced is an unrealistic, satirical video,” Senior U.S. District Judge William K. Sessions III wrote in a decision issued Tuesday.
The preliminary injunction marks the first major court test of Act 75, enacted in March to regulate deceptive AI-generated election material. Although the ruling applies only to one video and does not resolve a broader challenge to the law, it raises questions about how Vermont can regulate synthetic political media without infringing on constitutionally protected satire.
Sessions ordered Attorney General Charity Clark’s office not to enforce a civil investigative demand against Hank Poitras, who posts videos and political commentary under the name “Planet Hank,” or take other enforcement action against him based on a video he uploaded to several social media platforms entitled “Mark Helps Vermont Take Out The Trash,” generated using artificial intelligence.
Sessions found that Poitras was likely to prove Clark’s investigation violated his First Amendment rights. The judge also found that the video appeared to qualify for Act 75’s exemption for satire and parody.
The law requires certain synthetic media that injures a political candidate’s reputation and is published within 90 days of an election to include a disclaimer identifying it as digitally manipulated or generated. Poitras posted his video without a disclaimer two months before Vermont’s Aug. 11 primary, which fell within the timespan that requires such a disclosure.
But Sessions concluded that the video’s voice-over, the “unnatural appearances” of the people depicted and the events of the video all contributed to an unmistakably satirical character.
Sen. Brian Collamore, R-Rutland, who sponsored the legislation in the Vermont Senate, said Sessions’ ruling reflected lawmakers’ intent.
“One of the provisions was an exemption to the law if it was clearly satirical,” Collamore said, adding that he thought most reasonable people would consider Poitras’ video satirical. “It did not have to have identification as AI generated.”
Poitras posted the video on June 7. It uses AI-generated likenesses of U.S. Rep. Becca Balint, D-Vt., and then-Republican U.S. House candidate Mark Coester.
In the video, Coester criticizes Balint’s campaign and policies before using an excavator to lift her into a trash bin outside the Vermont Statehouse.
“Help fight back against evil,” a narrator says. “Help Vermont take out the trash.”
Five days later, the attorney general’s office notified Poitras that it was investigating whether the video violated Act 75. The office offered to close the investigation at the time if Poitras brought the video into compliance with the law by adding a disclosure, according to court documents.
Poitras instead sued Clark on July 8, contending that the demand that he alter his video under the threat of civil or criminal penalties violated his First Amendment rights.
Coester, who later lost the Republican primary to Gerald Malloy, said in an interview Wednesday that the investigation was unjustified even though the video also could have reflected poorly on him.
“It’s just really sad that it’s the citizens that pay the price for legislation that’s unconstitutional in the first place,” Coester said. “This has cost a high price for people to defend against something they never should have been prosecuted on, something that was clearly satire.”
Poitras’ lawsuit challenges Act 75 more broadly, alleging five First Amendment violations and one violation of the 14th Amendment. Sessions’ preliminary injunction is considerably narrower: It applies only to the June 7 video and the attorney general’s resulting investigative demand.
Lauren Jandl, Clark’s chief of staff, said the office was reviewing the decision and “determining next steps.”
“The Attorney General’s Office supported the synthetic media disclosure law because transparency and the integrity of elections are critical,” Jandl wrote in an email.
Poitras and his attorneys intend to seek a permanent injunction preventing Clark from enforcing Act 75 against Poitras and others, Poitras’ attorney Brady Toensing said.
“This preliminary injunction is an important victory for our fundamental right to make fun of politicians in this country,” Toensing wrote in an email.