• Musk's X sues Minnesota over a new law banning deepfake election influence.
• The lawsuit claims the law violates free speech protections.
• Minnesota's law could lead to censorship of political discourse, according to X.
• At least 22 states have enacted similar laws against deepfakes for elections.
• The lawsuit seeks a permanent injunction against the law's enforcement.

Elon Musk's social media platform X has filed a lawsuit against the state of Minnesota regarding a law that prohibits the use of AI-generated deepfakes intended to influence elections. X argues that this law infringes on free speech protections under the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and promotes censorship of critical political content. The suit was filed in federal court and seeks to block the law's enforcement due to its perceived vagueness and its potential for criminal liability for social media platforms if they fail to properly regulate content, according to Channel News Asia, Reuters, and The Hill.

The Minnesota law defines deepfakes as AI-generated media that realistically impersonates an individual without their consent and could lead to criminal action if shared within 90 days of an election. As many as 22 states are enacting similar regulations in response to growing concerns about the potential for deepfake technology to spread misinformation, as highlighted by data from Public Citizen. X expressed in its lawsuit that this law may drive platforms to excessively moderate content to avoid penalties, thereby stifling important political discussions and diverging from the principles of robust political debate protected under the First Amendment, according to The Hill and Channel News Asia.

In its complaint, X anticipates that the law could lead to significant censorship of political discourse, arguing that platforms would face a dilemma between maintaining content that could be deemed a deepfake and avoiding criminal liability. Musk, who has positioned himself as a proponent of free speech after acquiring Twitter in 2021, emphasizes that the law undermines democratic discourse by creating a chilling effect on legitimate political commentary. The lawsuit seeks to have the law declared unconstitutional and asks for a permanent injunction against its enforcement, as noted by Reuters and The Hill.