Today on AirTalk, we take a look back at the Supreme Court's rulings for this past term, and discuss what these rulings could mean for major cases going forward. We also examine a California bill that could broaden when wiretapping can be used as evidence in court; explore the future of sports betting in California; and more.
Diving Into A CA Bill To Ban Campaign-Related Deepfakes
“Deepfake” videos are created with high-tech tools to yield false but realistic clips. A recently proposed assembly bill in California would prohibit "deceptive audio or visual media" - including deepfakes - of a candidate running for elected office from being distributed within 60 days of an election.
It’s not just the government that’s trying to figure out how to regulate deepfakes. Recently, Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg says the company is evaluating how it should handle deepfakes, saying it might make sense to treat such videos differently from other misinformation such as false news, but they’re also leaving open the possibility of banning deepfakes altogether.
How would this proposed ban square with first amendment and election law?
With files from the Associated Press.
Guests:
Matthew Scherer, an attorney and legal scholar with the law firm Littler Mendelson in Portland, Oregon; he writes on the intersection of law and artificial intelligence. He is the editor of the blog, Law and AI
Eugene Volokh, law professor at UCLA teaching free speech law; he tweets
CA Sports Betting Measure Proposed For November 2020 Ballot
Sports betting could soon be legal in California.
The constitutional amendment, ACA 16, was proposed by state Senator Bill Bobb and California Assemblyman Adam Grey . In an interview with ESPN, Gray said “I know there's significant interest throughout the California sports economy… My hope would be that we can find a landing spot for sports wagering, where it could enhance all of those institutions, as well as provide revenue and a regulated market for consumers."
Gray has previously proposed similar bills, but none have moved out of committee. However, this time around could yield a different result -- last year, the Supreme Court overturned PASPA, the Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act, which previously limited sports betting only to Nevada. Now, legal sports betting is occuring in eight states, with more likely to join soon.
Do you think sports betting should be legalized in California? Let us know at 866-893-5722
Guests:
Jennifer Roberts, associate director of the International Center for Gaming Regulation and adjunct professor of law at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas
Steve Stallings, chairman of the California Nations Indian Gaming Association (CNIGA), a nonprofit organization advocating for the protection of the inherent sovereign rights of Indian tribes, and an elected tribal council member of the Rincon Band of Luiseno Indians near Valley Center in San Diego County
Steven Andrew Light, professor of political science and co-director of the Institute for the Study of Tribal Gaming Law and Policy at the University of North Dakota
A Bill That Could Broaden When Wiretapping Can Be Used As Evidence In California Courts
In 2009, Los Angeles County sheriff's deputies allegedly heard narcotics officer Carlos Arellano through a wiretap, indicating his involvement in drug-trafficking.
The case against Arellano lead to a decade of investigations and court hearings, and has resulted in a bill that could expand the way wiretaps are utilized in California.
Authored by state Senator Tom Umberg (D-Santa Ana), Senate Bill 439 would allow law enforcement to use intercepted phone calls, emails, and other electronic communications in cases that the state law would currently disallow.
Supporters of the bill argue that California law includes enough provisions to ensure that wiretaps would not be misused while those who oppose the proposal claim that if the bill was passed into law, wiretaps could be used for a dangerously broad range of purposes.
Should law enforcement be allowed to use wiretapping to hold potential criminals accountable or is wiretapping inherently an invasion of privacy?
We hear from both sides of the debate.
Guests:
California State Senator Tom Umberg of Senate District 34, which includes the cities of Anaheim, Huntington Beach, and Long Beach; he also authored SB-439; he tweets
Jody Armour, professor of law at USC; he tweets
SCOTUS Term Recap: Chief Justice Roberts Becomes Swing Vote As High Court Continues Conservative Shift
With the departure of Justice Anthony Kennedy from the U.S. Supreme Court in July of last year, it wasn’t clear exactly who, if anyone, would take his place as the potential swing vote on the court heading in to the court’s most recent term, which began in October and concluded last week. Now that it’s over, it looks like the new swing man is none other than its formal leader, Chief Justice John Roberts.
Chief Justice Roberts provided the swing vote in what was probably the most highly-anticipated ruling of the term, U.S. Dept. of Commerce v. New York, in which the court ruled 5-4 that the Trump administration could not include a question about respondents’ citizenship on the upcoming 2020 Census, at least for now, because it did not provide sufficient proof that the question was necessary. However, it did leave room for the possibility that the Trump administration might try to add the question again. But just as with the Census question, where the court showed us that party lines don’t always lead to predictable decisions, the court also showed evidence of its slow-but-steady shift to the right in its 5-4 ruling on a case involving partisan gerrymandering in which it determined that the federal courts should not have a say in disputes involving partisan gerrymandering, and that the issue is one to be resolved by politicians and the political process.
What were some of the other major rulings that came down from the Supreme Court this term? What did we learn about the makeup of this Supreme Court from this term? What about the newest justices and President Trump’s two appointees, Justices Gorsuch and Kavanaugh? What are the major cases coming up next term for the High Court and what can we infer about how the court might rule on some of those cases based on this term?
Guests:
Amy Howe, co-founder of SCOTUSBlog and author of the blog “Howe on the Court”; she tweets
Jess Bravin, Supreme Court correspondent for The Wall Street Journal; he tweets
Remembering Busing And School Desegregation In Los Angeles
The biggest moment in last week’s Democratic presidential debate between California Senator Kamala Harris and former Vice President Joe Biden has brought back to the fore one of the most divisive policies facing education in the 1970s: to desegregate public schools by busing.
A handful of court decisions in the 1970s paved the way for busing as a way to integrate public schools in the Los Angeles Unified School Districts. The practice bussed African American students from economically disadvantaged neighborhoods to wealthier and white-dominated schools and areas -- and vice versa. Mandatory busing came to an end in 1979, with the passage of a state constitutional amendment.
Proponents say that busing, although not perfect, is an effective way to ensure racial and resource parity in LAUSD. One of the consequences of busing, like opponents had warned, was a “white flight” from LAUSD neighborhoods, and white parents taking their kids out of public schools to attend private schools.
Call AirTalk at 866.893.5722 if you attended LAUSD in the 70s and experienced the impact of desegregation busing.
Guest:
Howard Blume, education reporter at the Los Angeles Times, who has published a piece this week looking at the fight over busing in Los Angeles in the 1970s