Enforcement by private suit OK in Tex-ass but not California?

In the case of Tex-ass, I'm talking about its pre-Dobbs law that allowed private residents to sue over abortion and abortion assistance, still being used by a few wingnut ex-boyfriends who are almost certainly being bankrolled by people with some connection to Farris Wilks and Tim Dunn. That was the law that SCOTUS essentially punted on pre-Dobbs and has never, in reality, done a final revisitation.

Well, California passed a similar law over "election deepfake" videos, but a federal district judge struck it down as unconstitutional. Per John A. Mendez, maybe the law is "a hammer instead of a scalpel," but maybe more than a scalpel is needed. Frankly, this is just another example of how the federal judiciary is behind the curve, and arguably falls further behind the curve all the time, in matters related to the online world.

Christopher Kohls, the plaintiff? His deepfake that was among those that prompted the law is so nutters that Elmo signal-boosted him on Twitter.

As for First Amendment worries? The laws in question include an "actual malice" standard and a "materiality" standard. Is it borderline? I'll agree. Is it way out of bounds? I'll disagree. And, maybe First Amendment scholars, stalwarts and activist groups aren't all that much ahead of the federal judiciary.