Americans have roasted their politicians long before the Constitution was ratified. Benjamin Franklin published satirical essays under pseudonyms to target the powerful—precisely this tradition of sharp, irreverent critique has endured for nearly 250 years without needing government permission slips.
Until now. A handful of state legislatures have adopted artificial intelligence regulation as a new pretext to restrict political speech. By wrapping censorship in tech jargon and “voter protection” language, officials aim to justify broad speech restrictions under the guise of oversight.
The Babylon Bee has filed a federal lawsuit challenging New Mexico’s HB 182 law, which mandates government-approved disclaimers on AI-generated political satire—despite the state attorney general previously declaring this provision likely unconstitutional. Alliance Defending Freedom attorneys submitted the complaint in U.S. District Court for the District of New Mexico on Tuesday, arguing the statute violates First Amendment rights.
The law requires civil penalties up to $1,000 per violation (capped at $20,000), applicable year-round and not limited to election seasons. It demands disclaimers that must be “easily readable” for images, displayed continuously for videos, and spoken repeatedly—every two minutes in audio content. As the Bee’s legal complaint states: “HB 182 spoils the joke as it begins, each and every time.”
New Mexico officials recognized constitutional flaws before enacting the law. Democrat Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham acknowledged “ambiguous” language and potential legal issues when signing HB 182 in March 2024. By July 2025, Attorney General Raúl Torrez—a fellow Democrat—issued an advisory opinion confirming that applying disclaimer mandates to satire and parody is “likely unconstitutional on its face.”
The law remains active despite these acknowledgments. The State Ethics Commission has never disavowed enforcement, leaving the threat of compelled speech hanging in place. This approach forces citizens to parrot government-approved language as a prerequisite for political discourse—plain, uncompromising state-mandated censorship.
Babylon Bee CEO Seth Dillon described New Mexico’s actions bluntly: “We are stuffing words into our mouths, forcing us to say things we wouldn’t say otherwise.” He emphasized no retreat: “If a joke likely violates the law, we’ll tell it anyway—because we have a right to, and we refuse to do the tyrant’s work for him.”
The lawsuit targets the Bee’s video “Visit New Mexico: A Democrat Untopia,” featuring an AI-generated version of state Supreme Court Justice David K. Thomson—a 2026 ballot candidate—who cheerfully announces rulings against the Bill of Rights. Under HB 182, such content would require massive disclaimers labeling it as “manipulated or generated by artificial intelligence.”
The statute also exhibits built-in bias: It explicitly exempts “news stories” and “editorials” from disclaimer requirements but imposes controls on satire, parody, political cartoons, and memes. This creates a system where legacy media operates freely while independent voices face state-mandated speech restrictions.
ADF Chief Legal Counsel Jim Campbell stated: “The government cannot decide which political speech is allowed or forbidden. Whenever officials determine what speech is acceptable, dissent disappears and democracy suffers.” ADF has already successfully challenged similar AI content regulations in California and Hawaii, positioning New Mexico for a likely legal defeat.
The Founders understood that political satire was a weapon against tyranny. They overlooked the fact that when governments dictate terms of political humor, they reveal how much they fear accountability. The Babylon Bee’s lawsuit isn’t about comedy—it’s about defending every American’s right to mock power without bureaucratic approval.
No government—regardless of state or party—gets to pre-approve your punch line.
