Court Just Spanked Gavin Newsom Over the First Amendment

The U. S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit only slapped down parts of a controversial California law imposing free speech-busting monitoring demands on social media platforms like X and Facebook.

California’s AB 587 was hailed by Gov. Gavin Newsom and Attorney General Rob Bonta as ensuring” cultural internet transparency”, but the Ninth Circuit Court ruled for the claimant — X — dismissing the government’s reporting needs” with unfairness”.

Loosely translated, that means,” Don’t test something else like that again, Bub”.

Under AB 587, social media platforms with more than$ 100 million in annual revenue are required to disclose their content moderation policies and submit semiannual reports to AG Bonta “on categories like hate speech, disinformation, and harassment, detailing flagged content, enforcement actions ( e. g., removals ), and detection methods”, according to one summary. &nbsp,

Free speech proponents argued that AB 587’s reporting laws amounted to “censorship by proxy”, and the Ninth evidently agreed. I’d highly agree with the jury. When you’re required to report to the state attorney general each time what kind of information you’re squashing — and what information you’re allowing — politics didn’t help but travel into the decision-making process. Particularly when A) the state has already established a firm regulatory hand (” Nice platform you’ve got there, be a shame if anything happened to it”. ) over social media, and B) the sanctions go up to$ 15, 000 per day per violation.

Those sanctions was rapidly snowball on any so-called “infraction” that went virus. &nbsp,

And Another Point: I’m still waiting to see what happens to California’s another” Out, damned free talk”! rules, AB 2655. That a outlawed “materially false information” about prospects and election authorities for 120 days before an election. The example that Newsom highlighted on X had” PAROD Y” slapped on it in great big letters, as I reported at the time. The Babylon Bee sued over AB 2655, but there hasn’t yet been a decision.

” Forcing a secret entity to establish terms like’ hate talk’ or’ disinformation’ and record how it polices them is not tantamount to listing ingredients on a cereal box”, the Ninth ruled, “it’s a mandate to express a position on disputed societal issues”.

Three more sweet things from the ruling:

• ” Social media companies, like papers, have a First Amendment right to decide what to publish and what to remove—AB 587’s needs tread seriously on that autonomy, pressuring websites to conform their tolerance to the country’s preferred narrative”. &nbsp,
• ” We hold that the reporting provisions of AB 587 violate the First Amendment by compelling speech that goes beyond factual disclosure and into the realm of editorial judgment, without a sufficiently compelling justification to survive scrutiny”. &nbsp,
• ” Transparency is a laudable goal, but the state cannot wield it as a cudgel to extract speech from private entities under the guise of consumer protection”.

That’s pretty much the appeals court version of pimp-slapping Newsom and Bonta. I hope it stings.

Mario Nawfal noted that” No other platform challenged the law, but X stood alone and won”.

So those other platforms — I’m looking at you, Instagram, Facebook, BlueSky, Threads, etc. — need to answer a question: What business are you in, anyway? Because from my vantage point, you appear too cowardly in the face of unconstitutional state power to be trusted as any kind of communication medium. &nbsp,

Recommended: &nbsp, YouWon’t Believe What’s Coming to Texas

P. S. Thanks so much for reading. If you’d like to join some of the smartest voices on the internet in our Virtually Troll-Free™ comments section — plus access to exclusive essays, podcasts, and video live chats with your favorite writers — consider becoming a VIP member with this 60 % off FIGHT promo code. Nice, eh?

Source credit