The Babylon Bee won a federal court ruling blocking a Hawaii law that would have criminalized the "reckless" distribution of materially deceptive media and required mandatory disclaimers on certain videos, audio and images. U.S. District Judge Shanlyn Park found the statute risked viewpoint-based enforcement and infringed on protected political speech. The ruling, secured with representation from Alliance Defending Freedom, preserves strong protections for satire and parody — including AI-generated content used for comedic purposes.
Babylon Bee Scores Major First Amendment Win — Federal Court Blocks Hawaii Law Targeting Political Memes and Satire
Judge gavel, scales of justice and books.(Getty Images)
The Babylon Bee, a conservative satirical news site, scored a significant First Amendment victory on Friday after the Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) successfully challenged a Hawaii law that would have restricted certain political satire and imposed mandatory disclaimers on digital media.
The law, signed by Gov. Josh Green in 2024, sought to prohibit individuals from "recklessly distributing... materially deceptive media" and would have required videos, audio and images deemed risky to carry clear, legible disclaimers. Violations potentially carried criminal penalties, fines, and civil liability. Much of the statute focused on AI-generated images and deepfakes, which lawmakers argued could mislead voters and influence elections.
Judge Rules Law Risks Viewpoint Discrimination
U.S. District Judge Shanlyn Park, who was nominated to the District of Hawaii in 2023, struck down the statute in an order emphasizing that "political speech, of course, is at the core of what the First Amendment is designed to protect." Judge Park criticized the law (identified in part as S2687) for relying on a risk-based assessment rather than requiring proof of actual harm, warning that enforcement "based solely on the value judgments and biases of the enforcement agency" could enable discretionary, targeted, and viewpoint-discriminatory enforcement.
"Rather than require actual harm, [S2687] imposes a risk assessment based solely on the value judgments and biases of the enforcement agency — which could conceivably lead to discretionary and targeted enforcement that discriminates based on viewpoint," Judge Park wrote.
Plaintiffs, Arguments And Reaction
The plaintiffs — The Babylon Bee, LLC, and contributor Dawn O’Brien — are parodists and humorists who produce intentionally false and hyperbolic political content. They argued that satire and parody have a long tradition of protected political expression and that compelled disclaimers would dilute their message and chill protected speech.
Babylon Bee CEO Seth Dillon called the ruling "yet another victory for the First Amendment," and thanked ADF for its representation. ADF legal counsel Mathew Hoffmann argued that satire "delivers truth with a smile" and that the government cannot censor political memes and satire under the guise of combating misinformation.
ADF also noted a related legal win for the Bee in California, where it successfully opposed efforts by the state attorney general to compel social platforms to provide data for investigations into alleged spreaders of false information.
Next Steps And Broader Implications
The Hawaii Department of the Attorney General said it is reviewing the court's decision and offered no further comment. Legal observers say the ruling could deter similar preventive censorship laws that rely on vague risk assessments rather than demonstrable harm — particularly those aimed at AI-generated content — and will be closely watched for its implications on speech regulation and online satire.
The decision reaffirms longstanding constitutional protections for parody and political expression, while highlighting judicial skepticism of broad statutes that risk viewpoint-based enforcement.
Help us improve.
