By Michael Donoghue, Vermont News First
A controversial Brattleboro videographer, who offers satire and commentary about Vermont politics and politicians, has filed a civil lawsuit in federal court against Vermont Attorney General Charity R. Clark after she tried to block his First Amendment rights to post his work.
Social media creator Henry L. Poitras, who uses the pseudonym “Planet Hank,” said his work “mocks and exaggerates the conduct and statements of Vermont politicians and public figures.”
But Clark, citing a new Vermont law that challenges the use of A.I., said it requires certain disclosures that were not done by Poitras.
One 49-second video posted on social media by Poitras apparently got under the skin of U.S. Rep. Becca Balint, D-Vt.
Poitras said Clark’s office told him he was under investigation shortly after he posted the short satire video last month. The video mocks Balint’s politics and persona, and it ends with Mark Coester operating an excavator that scoops up Balint and drops her in a dumpster in front of the Vermont State House while a narrator says “help Vermont take out the trash.”
Coester of Westminster and Gerald Malloy of Weathersfield are squaring off in the Republican primary on Aug. 11 for the right to face Balint of Brattleboro in the general election in November.
The lawsuit acknowledges the video is realistic.
“However, no one, but a very young child or an unusually gullible person, would believe that the video, which also depicts Ms. Balint wearing a French-style beret as she is being lifted into the dumpster, is real, or that it is not a satirical commentary on Ms. Balint’s political views, candidacy, and elite persona,” it said.
In the letter from Clark’s office, dated June 12, it tells Poitras that he is under investigation for noncompliance with the new synthetic media disclosure law, which “requires specific disclosure language on videos created with A.I. containing a realistic representation of a political candidate that injures the reputation of that candidate.”
The law directs the person producing the message to include the specific words, “This media has been manipulated or generated by digital technology and depicts speech or conduct that did not occur.”
The Clark letter made several demands on Poitras, including that he answer 15 questions in writing and under oath. The letter also said if he brings the video into compliance with the law, the Attorney General will consider the case closed.
Instead Poitras filed the civil lawsuit against Clark in both her official and personal capacities and said he did not intend to take it down by the June 26 deadline imposed by the Attorney General.
“I am not willing to alter my satire to carry the government’s message,” Poitras wrote in a court affidavit. He said he asked for a 30-day extension, but was denied and was offered 14 days, which made the deadline Friday. He filed the lawsuit instead.
The lawsuit also requested a temporary restraining order from a federal judge to put the brakes on Clark.
Instead the two sides have reached a temporary agreement.
Clark has agreed to temporarily suspend the pending Civil Investigative Notice and Demand until both sides can fully prepare legal briefs for the federal court. They also asked the court to cancel the initial legal briefing deadline schedule for the week of July 14.
The two sides have agreed to meet and discuss a possible schedule and report to the court on or before July 17.
Clark did not respond to text and phone messages from Vermont News First. An office spokesman said she was unavailable.
Solicitor General Jonathan T. Rose, who is the lawyer assigned to the case, told Vermont News First on Friday he was unable to speak about the case. It is the Attorney General’s office policy not to allow lawyers to talk to reporters about their public cases, he said.
Questions need to be directed to Clark or the office’s chief of staff, who is a non-lawyer.
The lawsuit was filed by two attorneys on behalf of Poitras: former Vermonter, Brady C. Toensing of Washington, D.C. and Matthew D. Hardin of Texas.
“Mr. Poitras fought for this country’s values as a Marine. He is fighting for them again, this time against his own Attorney General,” Toensing told Vermont News First.
“The right to criticize, satirize, and mock our political leaders is not a privilege the government grants us. It is ours by birthright, and Vermonters do not surrender it because Attorney General Clark takes offense,” he noted.
The law, which went into effect in March, was approved by the Vermont Legislature without consideration from any First Amendment advocates.
The lawsuit notes various violations of the First Amendment within the five claims outlined in the lawsuit. They note the message is political speech, compels him to make certain comments or speech and that it is overbroad. It also asks the court to dismiss the case due to vagueness, requires a compelled disclosure and its makes a prior restraint on speech.
The video notes, “Becca Balint is evil” and criticizes her ties to New Jersey, her position on taxation and government spending. It also quotes her as saying “My career is unstoppable.”
Poitras graduated from high school in Keene, N.H. and served in the U.S. Marines with training at Parris Island and a tour during the Iraq War, court records note. He says he is a disabled combat veteran now living in Brattleboro.
He has become a controversial figure locally by shooting video of law enforcement, mostly Brattleboro Police, making arrests and showing the underbelly of the community with drugs and thefts in recent years. People have accused him of exploiting vulnerable community members, filming medical and mental health crises for personal profit, and peddling divisive rhetoric.
He recently shot video of the arrest of a Keene State College student-athlete, who found where Poitras lived. Brattleboro Police say the student, who was unhappy about the posted video, broke into his home and got into a knife fight, but was disarmed by the Marine.
Discover more from Vermont Daily Chronicle
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Categories: Media
There’s a minor typo. It’s actually Planet Hank and you can find his Website here: https://planethank.com his YouTube channel here: https://www.youtube.com/@PlanetHank and his Facebook page here: https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100063548589558
But nothing against the elected official that violated his oath of office in a foreign Country and supporting our enemy but posing and pointing to a banner calling to kill our President, “Kill Trump “
my take is that the attorney general and the state’s attorney in Burlington have to act the way they do or the loonie left will primary them; either that or they are already in the loonie left aka. socialists
Good luck Hank. Just last night I turned on the TV and watched the local news on WPTZ . After the news at 11:30 is Saturday Night Live . SNL makes it’s living parading Republican politicians . Some of it is funny, a lot of it is just TDS spreading crap ! The point being I can tell the difference between DJT, and a second rate attempt at a comedic parody of him . I do believe that this is a textbook example of political manipulation of the 1st A by a political lawyer to suit her party’s needs at a given time . If this position by the AG’s Office is allowed to stand, programs that take a political lean like SNL should not be allowed to continue their present use of parody either . Should images like a severed Trump head be brushed off as being merely tasteless ? That depiction was gross and suggested violence. Ms, Ballant, with the assistance of AG Clark may have opened up a very smelly can of sun-ripened worms, and Mr. Poitras, I wish you and your lawyers success in your lawsuit to defend the !st A !
Patrick,
Act 75 relates only AI product material.
Does this SNL show feature real humans or is the SNL programming you watch AI generated?
David, One needs to look at the intent of the poorly written law, to prevent ‘Deep Fake’ speeches etc to be presented as real comments etc by a candidate to influence the voter as to the subject matter. This does not fit that bill as one can surely see comedy and parody
AI is a big step in media, but it’s not that huge of a distinction. Back in 1968, Stanley Kubrick made the movie 2001 A Space Odyssey. It used amazing imagery without the aid of computers, but no one believed that he actually built an orbiting hotel to film the production. Animation in moving pictures has been around for 100 years, and no one believes that there was an actual person named Betty Boop. The big distinction is NOT that computer assistance was used by PlanetHank, but that it is PARODY and is PROTECTED FREE EXPRESSION. What IS obvious is that liberals have no sense of humor and very thin skin when made light of.
Did anyone read the law? Planet Hank can post all the AI satires he wants as long as they’re labeled as such. I think the law is poorly written, but the protection should apply to anyone, not just politicians. A tremendous amount of reputational damage can be done to someone with one of these. How would any poster here like to be the subject of a realistic “satire’ where they claim blacks are intellectually inferior to whites, or that Hitler was right all along. Once something is on the internet, it’s there forever. Be careful what you wish for in the name of the first amendment. You might get it.
The law, like much of the garbage legislation coming out of the majority party in Montpelier IS poorly written and only intended to protect them and their thin skin from having their feewings hurt.
I’m old so I remember when SNL was actually funny, just like Planet Hank, so never give up, and never surrende4.
It does not matter how the video was created, the first amendment does not contain any qualifiers. The state officials are trying every trick to support the left while disparaging the Republicans.
True, the text of the First Amendment is written as an absolute prohibition (“Congress shall make no law…”). However, the U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly interpreted these rights as containing implicit limits, meaning the government can absolutely restrict certain actions and types of expression.
The Second Amendment is also VERY clear in stating “shall not be infringed”, but look what libs have done to that.
David SCOTUS decided parody is legal
Kendel, “If you want to know who the bad guys are,
It is the side who wants you arrested for free speech, memes and jokes.”
Ron,
In general that is correct. But its legality is not a blanket protection. Can’t wait to see what the State’s actual argument(if any) is against Hank.
That’s not true at all. Threats, things like shouting “fire” in a crowded movie theatre, defamation, and copyright infringement aren’t protected by the first Amendment.
Children and college kids don’t have complete first Amendment protection while they are in school.
This case if perused has a strong potential of going through the Federal System as a Civil Rights violation and a potential to be granted certiorari by SCOTUS
A state AG protects the government of the state. We often try to get our rights protected by our AG…but they will always protect the politicians. Vermont especially, with a socialist AG. I have tested this many times.
I asked both my local Police Department and County Sheriff who I can go to with concerns about civil or criminal violations of the law if the violator was a local or state government official. Both said “not me” and “I don’t know”.
So the Vermont Attorney General, Charity Clarke, is attempting to pursue a legal case on behalf of the incumbent/presumptive candidate Becca Balint. We have found the following defects in the law and in the application of the law:
A) The recently enacted law, Act 75, Violates the United States 1st Amendment, Free Speech clause.
B) The application of the law, if it were enforceable, by the VT AG is in error due to the law’s own wording, which allows parody or satire.
C) The application of the law, if it weren’t a violation of the 1st Amendment to the US Constitution, is in error because the proported infraction took place more than 90 days before the *election*. As our friend David davis points out: we must look at standing law, especially Title 17. Title 17 is very clear making the fact that “primary elections” are not “general elections.” In no place does Title 17 neglect to specify the type of election: Local, Primary, or General. Also, The term “election” is interchangeable with “general election” and is clearly defined:
Title 17, Chapter 41, “Purposes, Short Title, Definitions” section 2103 (11) “Election” means the procedure whereby the voters of this State, or any of its political subdivisions, select persons to fill public offices or act on public questions.
Therefore a primary election is obviously not an election because no public offices are filled or people selected to act on public questions. If you believe a “primary election” is the same as an “election”, then I have a whole bunch of “toy cars” I would love to sell you for the same price as a “car”. Qualifying words are very important in the English language as they are in law.
D) If the laws that are enacted can not be easily understood by ordinary men, then the legal system quickly becomes intolerable: nobody will know when they are breaking the laws until their political opponent drags them before their review. Obviously, this poorly written law is a violation of civilized society. If this happens, then the governing body responsible for such non-sense has violated all contracts with society, and men are free to choose another form of government. [read the 2nd amendment]
I’ll continue to believe that the State Primary Election, which is fully funded, organized, and governed by public election officials under Vermont law, is not a private party affair, and is overseen by The Vermont Secretary of State’s Elections Division alongside our local town clerks, is an election.
We’ll need to see how it plays out in court.
It’s always good to have a second opinion, David. I certainly don’t know every’ting. thanks.
So, in other words, what you’re saying is if you don’t like how a law is written, you don’t have to follow it?
Brian, That is the Democrats way, if it is poorly written and vague courts reviewing it or any actions being challenged will look at ‘Legislative Intent’ when deciding if it is a good law or not. A vague law is difficult to follow and open to interpretation by anyone covered by it until the courts intervene, at a cost of course
If she could actually do her job, they wouldn’t be making fun of her. Democrats can’t handle the truth. Stop voting for Democrats and we won’t have a bunch of crybabies
Kenneth,
Shame on you for having common sense. Your comment is spot on.
Why don’t you run for that office? Stand up, good man! Stand up for something!
What is she worried about? Maybe she is worried that she will be next. That would be cool to expose all these progressives. Hey Planet Hank, do one of these on Charity and then let Sarah George be next
The plea is out Planet Hank. You have a much enhanced fan base now extending well beyond Brattleboro and we eagerly await new parodies of Charity Clark, Sarah George, Peter Welch and Brooklyn Bernie. Please post info of how those of us left in Vermont with a sense of humor can support your efforts.