This includes manipulated images, photoshops, AI-generated visuals, and any form of digital alteration that does not accurately mirror reality.
According to Hot Air, Phelan's initiative has culminated in House Bill 366, which mandates disclosures on altered media used in political advertising. The bill was discussed in the State Affairs Committee recently. Phelan, a Republican from Beaumont, maintained that the bill is designed to address the use of artificial intelligence in political advertising. However, critics argue that the legislation does not differentiate between AI-generated content and simple Photoshop edits, potentially criminalizing even basic image manipulation in political discourse.
WATCH: ‘LET’S GO BRANDON’ TAKES OVER THE WHITE HOUSE—TRUMP’S SHARPEST JAB YET CAUGHT ON VIDEO!
March 18, 2025
The bill was proposed in response to a campaign mailer from Club for Growth during the last election, which portrayed Phelan alongside Nancy Pelosi. The mailer aimed to underscore that Phelan received significant campaign contributions from a PAC that also supports Pelosi.
CHINA DROPS A BOMBSHELL WITH THIS ORDER TO CHINESE AIRLINES!
Phelan insists that his bill does not target memes, only political advertisements. However, those responsible for enforcing the law disagree, and Phelan's motives suggest he may not be entirely truthful in his assertions that memes would not be suppressed.
"If you like your memes, you can keep your memes. This has nothing to do with what's on social media," Phelan stated, referring to his bill that requires disclosures on political advertisements with AI-generated "deepfakes." Critics, however, argue that the bill is overly broad.
TWO HUGE NETWORKS LATEST TO SCRAP DEI INITIATIVES AFTER LAWSUIT SETTLEMENT!
The Texan conducted an analysis of the bill's actual implications, as opposed to what Phelan claims it would do, and the findings were not particularly favorable. James Tinley, the Texas Ethics Commission General Counsel, conceded that social media posts could indeed fall under the bill’s jurisdiction.
BREAKING NEWS: THERE'S AN EXPLOSIVE FEUD SHAKING UP CHICAGO'S POLITICAL LANDSCAPE!
“I think it’s possible for certain communications that are expressly advocating … It wouldn’t target memes in particular, but if a candidate says ‘vote for me’ on their social media, that would be a communication … that could be subject [to the rules],” Tinley testified.
MTG URGES TRUMP’S DOJ TO RESCUE AMERICANS FROM 'UNJUST' GUN LICENSE REVOCATIONS!
Phelan attempted to narrow the scope of the bill, stating it is solely within the election code and has no bearing on social media or internet posts. However, Tinley's response suggested otherwise, explaining that political advertising supports or opposes a candidate for nomination or election to public office, including content appearing on an internet website.
DEVELOPING: DRAMATIC EXIT FROM DEMOCRATIC PARTY SPARKS BIG TIME CONTROVERSY IN FLORIDA!
Memes, often used as a form of parodic political speech, are typically designed to shape public opinion on issues and individuals. They are particularly potent when used in political discussions. The fact that a politician is upset about his image appearing next to Nancy Pelosi is not surprising, but the message that a Pelosi-supporting organization was backing Phelan could be most effectively communicated by showing the two together.
BREAKING NEWS: VENEZUELA'S REGIME MAY BE THREATENING U.S. NATIONAL SECURITY!
Memes, while often hyperbolic and occasionally unfair, are a staple of politics. This type of behavior could be a contributing factor to why Phelan was ousted from his top position by his colleagues.
One of Phelan's constituents expressed his disapproval, stating, "Dade Phelan is my State Representative. He wants to put Texans in jail for political memes. If he puts me in jail for this meme, I will run against him from jail. As one of his constituents, I am embarrassed by everything he represents."
BRACE YOURSELF: TRUMP SAYS A TIDAL WAVE OF GAME-CHANGING DEALS IS ABOUT TO DROP!
The debate surrounding House Bill 366 continues, with critics arguing that it infringes upon freedom of speech and supporters insisting it is necessary to maintain integrity in political advertising. The bill's fate remains uncertain, but its implications for political discourse in Texas are significant.
