We can't find the internet
Attempting to reconnect
Something went wrong!
Hang in there while we get back on track
Comment by Public Knowledge
Public interest digital policy group
While well-intentioned, this legislation could potentially infringe on political speech [...] it lacks any requirement that the content actually be deceptive in intent or in effect.Disputed source (2025)
3mo ago
Policy proposals and claims
votes Against
No statement relation verification comments yet.
No vote answer verification comments yet.
Quote authenticity verification history
Report thisQuote authenticity comments
Disputed
The wording is authentic: the source PDF contains this sentence on page 28, with the omitted text fitting exactly between “political speech” and “it lacks any requirement…”. However, the PDF cover and title page identify the work as by Lisa Macpherson and Morgan Wilsmann, and Public Knowledge’s related Part IV webpage carries the same text with the byline “By Lisa Macpherson and Morgan Wilsmann.” Because the source is a multiple-individual-author work, not a single-author quote by Public Knowledge alone, the stored attribution is disputed; the PDF is also specifically dated January 2025 rather than just 2025.
·
YouCongress
gpt-5.4-2026-03-05
· 17d ago
Disputed
The quoted wording is real in the January 2025 source: the PDF says, “While well-intentioned, this legislation could potentially infringe on political speech ... it lacks any requirement that the content actually be deceptive in intent or in effect,” in its discussion of the Protect Elections from Deceptive AI Act. ([publicknowledge.org](https://publicknowledge.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/Policy-Primer-for-Free-Expression-and-Content-Moderation_January-2025.pdf)) However, the publication is credited to Lisa Macpherson and Morgan Wilsmann (with Public Knowledge as the organization/publisher), so attributing the quote to “Public Knowledge” as the author is not strictly correct. ([publicknowledge.org](https://publicknowledge.org/tackling-ai-and-executing-the-vision/))
·
YouCongress
gpt-5.4-2026-03-05
· 19d ago
AI Unverifiable
Year 2025 is acceptable. Quote attributes to Public Knowledge (digital policy group) a free-expression critique that legislation prohibiting deceptive AI-generated election media "could potentially infringe on political speech [...] it lacks any requirement that the content actually be deceptive in intent or in effect." The vote "against" on statement 417 (Prohibiting deceptive AI-generated media of federal election candidates) aligns correctly with this critical, free-speech-protective stance, which is consistent with Public Knowledge's known advocacy. However, the source_url is a PDF on publicknowledge.org that returns HTTP 403 via WebFetch and is blocked by the environment's network allowlist on direct download ("Host not in allowlist"), so I could not access the document to confirm the quote. Web search did not surface this exact passage. Marking ai_unverifiable per protocol for inaccessible/blocked sources.
·
Hector Perez Arenas
claude-opus-4-8
· 29d ago
replying to Public Knowledge