Free speech took a hit on Thursday.
Elon Musk’s X lost its bid to temporarily pause a California law that requires social media companies to turn over their terms of service and provide semiannual reports proving their efforts to moderate content and remove what the state deems to be hate speech, racism, extremism, disinformation or misinformation, harassment, or “foreign political interference.”
The bill “would state the intent of the Legislature that a social media company that violates the above provisions shall be subject to meaningful remedies sufficient to induce compliance with these provisions, and would specify civil penalties that a company shall be liable for if the bill’s provisions are violated, and how the Attorney General or a city attorney may bring an action against violators,” according to AB 587, which was signed into law by California Governor Gavin Newsom in September.
Following its passage, X sued California Attorney General Rob Bonta, arguing that the legislation violates the First Amendment and California’s constitution by improperly compelling speech that is meant to be free, according to The Hollywood Reporter.
“The legislative record is crystal clear that one of the main purposes of AB 587 — if not the main purpose — is to pressure social media companies to eliminate or minimize content that the government has deemed objectionable,” X’s complaint read.
But, according to U.S. District Judge William Shubb, the state’s reporting requirements aren’t “unjustified or unduly burdensome within the context of First Amendment law.”
As the reports require “purely factual” disclosures, Shubb ruled, they do not violate the First Amendment.
“The required disclosures are also uncontroversial,” Shubb stated. “The mere fact that the reports may be ‘tied in some way to a controversial issue’ does not make the reports themselves controversial.”
The state, Shubb decided, met its burden and successfully showed the reporting requirements “reasonably related to a substantial government interest” in ensuring that the content moderation policies and practices of social media platforms are transparent.
The bill actually benefits users, according to Shubb, who wrote that users will be able to “make informed decisions about where they consume and disseminate news.”
“Arguments that the law is preempted by section 230 of the Communications Decency Act — Big Tech’s favorite legal shield, which has historically afforded firms significant legal protection from liability as third-party publishers — were rejected, per the order,” The Hollywood Reporter notes.
“AB 587 only contemplates liability for failing to make the required disclosures about a company’s terms of service and statistics about content moderation activities, or materially omitting or misrepresenting the required information,” Shubb wrote. “It does not provide for any potential liability stemming from a company’s content moderation activities per se.”
Assemblymember Jesse Gabriel, a Democrat from Encino, who authored AB 587, did a victory lap on X.
“I am pleased that the Court denied Elon Musk’s motion and held that he is unlikely to succeed in this lawsuit,” he said in a statement. “As we have repeatedly emphasized, Assembly Bill 587 is a pure transparency measure that simply requires Twitter and other companies to be upfront about if and how they are moderating content. In in no way requires any specific content moderation policies — which is why it passed with strong, bipartisan support.”
“If Twitter has nothing to hide,” Gabriel said, “then they should have no objection to complying with this law.”
My statement regarding the denial of @elonmusk and @X Corp.’s motion for a preliminary injunction regarding #AB587: pic.twitter.com/Razs9WmiSB
— Asm. Jesse Gabriel (@AsmJesseGabriel) December 29, 2023
Few were impressed.
“Golly,” replied one X user, “are you really that stupid to think government should control speech like that?”
golly, are you really that stupid to think government should control speech like that
— c ☻☻ l ,,, caliCardinalFan (@brieche52084083) December 29, 2023
DONATE TO BIZPAC REVIEW
Please help us! If you are fed up with letting radical big tech execs, phony fact-checkers, tyrannical liberals and a lying mainstream media have unprecedented power over your news please consider making a donation to BPR to help us fight them. Now is the time. Truth has never been more critical!
Melissa Fine is the former executive editor of Casino Player, Strictly Slots, and Poker
Digest magazines. She is a UCLA graduate, news junkie, and dedicated Stargate SG-
1 fan. Melissa currently lives with her dog and two cats in a tiny town in the Sierra
Nevada foothills.
Comment
We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, profanity, vulgarity, doxing, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain fruitful conversation.
BPR INSIDER COMMENTS
Scroll down for non-member comments or join our insider conversations by becoming a member. We'd love to have you!
