Kenneth Parreno (’21), Counsel at Protect Democracy, coauthored an article for Lawfare discussing how statutory prohibitions and long-standing tort claims can combat election lies when voter intimidation laws fall short (“New and Old Tools to Tackle Deepfakes and Election Lies in 2024,” Oct. 1). Kenneth observed that “while voter suppression and election disinformation are not new, many tools traditionally deployed to combat falsehoods and voter intimidation are not particularly well suited to timely countering two narrow, but pernicious, categories of election falsehoods: (a) lies about the time, place, and manner of elections unattached to broader voter intimidation efforts; and (b) deepfakes. Traditional tort claims (like defamation) take time to litigate and don’t cover falsehoods unattached to a specific person’s reputation or privacy, and voter intimidation laws don’t apply to speech that doesn’t rely on fear or coercion to deter electoral participation.” To counter these challenges, states have introduced new laws against deepfakes and election lies, like California’s updated statutes and Minnesota’s Democracy for the People Act, which permit private lawsuits and civil penalties. In addition, Kenneth and his coauthors suggest litigators “might consider reviving a centuries-old but firmly established tort: interference with the right to vote,” but caution that “it is equally important not to undermine important First Amendment protections or allow overzealousness to lead to bad decisions.”
