Ministry Of Truth - CA Gov Newsom Signs Senate Bill AB 587 Into Law

[SkyChief]

Senate Bill AB 587 will require social media companies to publicly post their policies regarding hate speech, disinformation, harassment, and extremism on their platforms, and report data on their enforcement of the policies.

The Bill would also require California Attorney General "to make all terms of service reports submitted pursuant to those provisions available to the public in a searchable repository on its official internet website." . . . . whatever the hell that means.

"California will not stand by as social media is weaponized to spread hate and disinformation that threaten our communities and foundational values as a country. Californians deserve to know how these platforms are impacting our public discourse, and this action brings much-needed transparency and accountability to the policies that shape the social media content we consume every day." - CA Gov. Gavin Newsom

source: https://www.gov.ca.gov/2022/09/13/g...on-leading-social-media-transparency-measure/

This bill is likely to be struck down as unconstitutional as it violates 1st Amendment rights of people who post on social media platforms, and also the rights of the platforms themselves. It would be like forcing mobile phone companies to publish lists of spam callers. It is patently unconstitutional.

Also, this would cost California taxpayers a lot of money to enforce the measure - and are hurting from inflation. AB 587 is a mess on every level, and it will be challenged in court for violation of free speech, and challenged fort being another leftist overreach of government power, IMO.

 

[Phys251]

Senate Bill AB 587 will require social media companies to publicly post their policies regarding hate speech, disinformation, harassment, and extremism on their platforms, and report data on their enforcement of the policies.

The Bill would also require California Attorney General "to make all terms of service reports submitted pursuant to those provisions available to the public in a searchable repository on its official internet website." . . . . whatever the hell that means.

"California will not stand by as social media is weaponized to spread hate and disinformation that threaten our communities and foundational values as a country. Californians deserve to know how these platforms are impacting our public discourse, and this action brings much-needed transparency and accountability to the policies that shape the social media content we consume every day." - CA Gov. Gavin Newsom

source: https://www.gov.ca.gov/2022/09/13/g...on-leading-social-media-transparency-measure/

This bill is likely to be struck down as unconstitutional as it violates 1st Amendment rights of people who post on social media platforms, and also the rights of the platforms themselves. It would be like forcing mobile phone companies to publish lists of spam callers. It is patently unconstitutional.

Also, this would cost California taxpayers a lot of money to enforce the measure - and are hurting from inflation. AB 587 is a mess on every level, and it will be challenged in court for violation of free speech, and challenged fort being another leftist overreach of government power, IMO.

substantial taxpayer expense. The censorial consequences should trigger the highest level of constitutional scrutiny, but the undue burdens and lack of consumer benefit ensures it won't survive even lower levels of scrutiny,

People who like harassment, hate speech, and disinformation also oppose this bill. Why are you siding with them?

 

[SkyChief]

People who like harassment, hate speech, and disinformation also oppose this bill. Why are you siding with them?

I'm siding with the Constitution Of The United States. . . . The Right to free speech.

Government needs to stay out of the business of censoring (or monitoring) free speech. If someone objects to the information posted on a particular social media platform - for WHATEVER reason - - Don't use it.

The same as if you don't like the hogwash broadcast on a cable TV network. SIMPLY TURN IT OFF.

Government should not be monitoring content on social media. That slope can get really slippery.

 

[What if...?]

I'm siding with the Constitution Of The United States. . . . The Right to free speech.

Government needs to stay out of the business of censoring (or monitoring) free speech. If someone objects to the information posted on a particular social media platform - for WHATEVER reason - - Don't use it.

The same as if you don't like the hogwash broadcast on a cable TV network. SIMPLY TURN IT OFF.

Government should not be monitoring content on social media. That slope can get really slippery.

Problem is that persuasion is science now and is how so many became convinced the election was stolen. Manipulation below the level of cognition for the sole purpose of causing the target audience to misapprehend the situation at hand.

At no point in history have massive propaganda operations resulted in good things for the society they are promulgated in.

They locked up Typhoid Mary for public safety.

They can lock out all the professional liars as far as I’m concerned.

 

[Deuce]

I'm siding with the Constitution Of The United States. . . . The Right to free speech.

Government needs to stay out of the business of censoring (or monitoring) free speech. If someone objects to the information posted on a particular social media platform - for WHATEVER reason - - Don't use it.

The same as if you don't like the hogwash broadcast on a cable TV network. SIMPLY TURN IT OFF.

Government should not be monitoring content on social media. That slope can get really slippery.

It's not a free speech violation to make businesses provide reports. Quit whining.

 

[AGENT J]

Senate Bill AB 587 will require social media companies to publicly post their policies regarding hate speech, disinformation, harassment, and extremism on their platforms, and report data on their enforcement of the policies.

The Bill would also require California Attorney General "to make all terms of service reports submitted pursuant to those provisions available to the public in a searchable repository on its official internet website." . . . . whatever the hell that means.

"California will not stand by as social media is weaponized to spread hate and disinformation that threaten our communities and foundational values as a country. Californians deserve to know how these platforms are impacting our public discourse, and this action brings much-needed transparency and accountability to the policies that shape the social media content we consume every day." - CA Gov. Gavin Newsom

source: https://www.gov.ca.gov/2022/09/13/g...on-leading-social-media-transparency-measure/

This bill is likely to be struck down as unconstitutional as it violates 1st Amendment rights of people who post on social media platforms, and also the rights of the platforms themselves. It would be like forcing mobile phone companies to publish lists of spam callers. It is patently unconstitutional.

Also, this would cost California taxpayers a lot of money to enforce the measure - and are hurting from inflation. AB 587 is a mess on every level, and it will be challenged in court for violation of free speech, and challenged fort being another leftist overreach of government power, IMO.

please write in the bill where is the 1st amendment violation factually prove it
i mean maybe you are right but you haven't offered any actual evidence of such

 

[SkyChief]

please write in the bill where is the 1st amendment violation factually prove it
i mean maybe you are right but you haven't offered any actual evidence of such

The bill forces a private company (a social media platform) to disclose its editorial policy.

Can you imagine the looting and the fires if the state of New York forced the New York Times to publicly disclose their own editorial policy regarding letters to the editor?

That is nobody's business but the NY Times. They make their own policy regarding the admission or rejection of material/editorials submitted for publication. NYT has a constitutional right to publish whatever they want in their Op-Ed section - regardless of the degree of accuracy or political correctness.

Constitutionally, Social Media platforms enjoy the same Freedom of Speech/Freedom of Press.

AB 587 is patently unconstitutional, and I expect it will be challenged in the Courts, and I expect that the Courts will unanimously overrule it. . . . they are compelled to.

 

[upsideguy]

It's not a free speech violation to make businesses provide reports. Quit whining.

Senate Bill AB 587 will require social media companies to publicly post their policies regarding hate speech, disinformation, harassment, and extremism on their platforms, and report data on their enforcement of the policies.

The Bill would also require California Attorney General "to make all terms of service reports submitted pursuant to those provisions available to the public in a searchable repository on its official internet website." . . . . whatever the hell that means.

"California will not stand by as social media is weaponized to spread hate and disinformation that threaten our communities and foundational values as a country. Californians deserve to know how these platforms are impacting our public discourse, and this action brings much-needed transparency and accountability to the policies that shape the social media content we consume every day." - CA Gov. Gavin Newsom

source: https://www.gov.ca.gov/2022/09/13/g...on-leading-social-media-transparency-measure/

This bill is likely to be struck down as unconstitutional as it violates 1st Amendment rights of people who post on social media platforms, and also the rights of the platforms themselves. It would be like forcing mobile phone companies to publish lists of spam callers. It is patently unconstitutional.

Also, this would cost California taxpayers a lot of money to enforce the measure - and are hurting from inflation. AB 587 is a mess on every level, and it will be challenged in court for violation of free speech, and challenged fort being another leftist overreach of government power, IMO.

The bolded statement above is the crux of the issue. You really don't understand what you are talking about.

A bill requiring social media companies to publicly post their policies regarding hate speech, disinformation, harassment, and extremism on their platforms, and report data on their enforcement of the police is no way a restriction of free speech. In fact, I would argue that this promotes free speech as it requires the rules to be clear and enforced consistently. I also hope you realize that social media companies are private enterprises. They have no obligation to provide you a soap box upon which you can say what you want. They get to make their own rules and enforce them. Truth Social, for example, while a forum for political speech, you say the wrong thing there, even if based upon facts, you will be run from the site, but that is their prerogative. Of course, this California bill would make Truth Social fess up (put in writing) that if you counter the leader you will be banned.

https://news.yahoo.com/trump-truth-social-banning-users-164736257.html

I think your panties are in wad because you aren't grasping the issue. Try again and report back after you have studied up.

 

[AGENT J]

The bill forces a private company (a social media platform) to disclose its editorial policy.

Can you imagine the looting and the fires if the state of New York forced the New York Times to publicly disclose their own editorial policy regarding letters to the editor?

That is nobody's business but the NY Times. They make their own policy regarding the admission or rejection of material/editorials submitted for publication. NYT has a constitutional right to publish whatever they want in their Op-Ed section - regardless of the degree of accuracy or political correctness.

Constitutionally, Social Media platforms enjoy the same Freedom of Speech/Freedom of Press.

AB 587 is patently unconstitutional, and I expect it will be challenged in the Courts, and I expect that the Courts will unanimously overrule it. . . . they are compelled to.

weird, nothing you posted answers my question



ill ask you AGAIN
please quote in the bill where is the 1st amendment violation factually prove it
i mean maybe you are right but you haven't offered any actual evidence of such

 

[Roadvirus]

So...what's the Vegas odds on this heading to SCOTUS?

 

[SkyChief]

weird, nothing you posted answers my question



ill ask you AGAIN
please quote in the bill where is the 1st amendment violation factually prove it
i mean maybe you are right but you haven't offered any actual evidence of such

Here's an outline of the Bill: https://legiscan.com/CA/text/AB587/2021

Sections 22675, 22676 and 22677 have elements which explicitly force social media platforms to disclose editorial policies that other forms of publications are NOT required to. This is the issue that will need to be decided in the Courts.

Should a publication be required to disclose its policies for screening material for publication? The AB 587 requires it. But if AB 587 is imposed on social media platforms, the what's to stop government from imposing these disclosures on other media platforms? New York Times, Los Angeles Times, Wall street Journal, etc, etc . . ?

Newspaper and Magazine publications could be the next target. It's a slippery slope, and for that reason, I'm certain that this bill will struck down on constitutional (1st Amendment) grounds.

 

[AGENT J]

Here's an outline of the Bill: https://legiscan.com/CA/text/AB587/2021

Sections 22675, 22676 and 22677 have elements which explicitly force social media platforms to disclose editorial policies that other forms of publications are NOT required to. This is the issue that will need to be decided in the Courts.

Should a publication be required to disclose its policies for screening material for publication? The AB 587 requires it. But if AB 587 is imposed on social media platforms, the what's to stop government from imposing these disclosures on other media platforms? New York Times, Los Angeles Times, Wall street Journal, etc, etc . . ?

Newspaper and Magazine publications could be the next target. It's a slippery slope, and for that reason, I'm certain that this bill will struck down on constitutional (1st Amendment) grounds.

so, you cant provide any quotes of the bill that factually violates the first amendment in any way, got it. I figured as much.
please let us know when you can actually back up and support the false claims in your op. thanks!

 

[SkyChief]

so, you cant provide any quotes of the bill that factually violates the first amendment in any way, got it. I figured as much.
please let us know when you can actually back up and support the false claims in your op. thanks!

Obviously you didn't read the outline of the bill which I provided for you. https://legiscan.com/CA/text/AB587/2021

You refuse to know the truth - even when it is placed right in front of you. Sad.

 

[AGENT J]

Obviously you didn't read the outline of the bill which I provided for you.

Sad. You refuse to know the truth - even when it is placed right in front of you.

CHooo CHoooo your dodge is dually noted LMAO
if you don't want your false claims to look stupid and fail so hard in the future simply make posts based on honesty and integrity that you can back up with facts and this will solve your problem. you're welcome!
like i said please let us know when you can actually back up and support the false claims in your op. thanks!



who bets my request is dodged and run from again?

 

[dmpi]

I also think the bill should be stuck down, not because of first amendment issues but rather because it's anti-competitive in the sense that it forces media company to disclose what should be propitiatory information and/or trade secrets. They spent a lot of money developing and refining their editorial polices. They shouldn't be forced to give them away without compensation. And what is the goverment going to do with this data anyway? They're just going to cherry pick to further their own agenda.

 

[What if...?]

I also think the bill should be stuck down, not because of first amendment issues but rather because it's anti-competitive in the sense that it forces media company to disclose what should be propitiatory information and/or trade secrets. They spent a lot of money developing and refining their editorial polices. They shouldn't be forced to give them away without compensation. And what is the goverment going to do with this data anyway? They're just going to cherry pick to further their own agenda.

The public does have some right to know these things. To expect standards.

For example, wouldn’t you want to know if some site your kid visits encourages them to eat Tide pods or directs them to a site where they can be groomed by pedophiles or maybe radicalize your kid into strapping on a bomb. Or should that be kept secret from you in the name of free speech?

We have a major crisis in this country right now based entirely on lies knowingly told by the people who told them.

At what point do we as a society address the persuasion industries and the damage they cause in the name of power and profit? Because they are really the target of this.

 

[SkyChief]

I also think the bill should be stuck down, not because of first amendment issues but rather because it's anti-competitive in the sense that it forces media company to disclose what should be propitiatory information and/or trade secrets. They spent a lot of money developing and refining their editorial polices. They shouldn't be forced to give them away without compensation. And what is the goverment going to do with this data anyway? They're just going to cherry pick to further their own agenda.

It WILL be struck down.

Yes, it is anti-competitive as you stated.

It is a complete mess. . . . A stupid overreach of government power. This is what the leftist/Marxist extremists focus on.

Good. We can use their authoritarianism against them. It is our obligation (and duty to democracy).

It's time to promote power to the people - - NOT power to the government.

Champions of liberty will prevail.

 

[EMNofSeattle]

People who like harassment, hate speech, and disinformation also oppose this bill. Why are you siding with them?

Because writing hate speech and harassment at leftists is fun.

 

[multivita-man]

Senate Bill AB 587 will require social media companies to publicly post their policies regarding hate speech, disinformation, harassment, and extremism on their platforms, and report data on their enforcement of the policies.

How is that wrong or unconstitutional?

The Bill would also require California Attorney General "to make all terms of service reports submitted pursuant to those provisions available to the public in a searchable repository on its official internet website." . . . . whatever the hell that means.

How is that wrong or unconstitutional?

This bill is likely to be struck down as unconstitutional as it violates 1st Amendment rights of people who post on social media platforms,

There's no 1st amendment right to post on a social media platform. Show me where Patrick Henry is quoted as saying "Give me Facebook or give me death."

and also the rights of the platforms themselves.

Like what?

It would be like forcing mobile phone companies to publish lists of spam callers. It is patently unconstitutional.

There's nothing in the constitution that would prohibit that -- Article I Section 8 allow congress to regulate commerce among the states.

Also, this would cost California taxpayers a lot of money to enforce the measure - and are hurting from inflation. AB 587 is a mess on every level, and it will be challenged in court for violation of free speech, and challenged fort being another leftist overreach of government power, IMO.

Blah! Blah! Blah!

 

[multivita-man]

I'm siding with the Constitution Of The United States. . . . The Right to free speech.

It says Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech. Show me how the law is specifically intended to abridge free speech.

Government needs to stay out of the business of censoring (or monitoring) free speech. If someone objects to the information posted on a particular social media platform - for WHATEVER reason - - Don't use it.

It's not censoring; they want to know if social media is applying their terms of service in a consistent manner. Isn't this one of the complaints of Repubs - that social media selectively apply their TOS?

The same as if you don't like the hogwash broadcast on a cable TV network. SIMPLY TURN IT OFF.

You don't get it.

Government should not be monitoring content on social media. That slope can get really slippery.

So you're saying the US government should ignore ISIS and Al Qaida recruitment posts on YouTube, Twitter, and Facebook. If they post pictures of burning people alive to recruit anti-American radicals, they should just look the other way?

 

[SkyChief]

How is that wrong or unconstitutional?

Read the Bill.

How is that wrong or unconstitutional?

Read the Bill.

There's no 1st amendment right to post on a social media platform. Show me where Patrick Henry is quoted as saying "Give me Facebook or give me death."

Huh?

There's nothing in the constitution that would prohibit that -- Article I Section 8 allow congress to regulate commerce among the states.

Freedom of Speech is NOT commerce. We must not conflate these things.

Blah! Blah! Blah!

Ooops. Not an argument!

 

[Hamish Howl]

Because writing hate speech and harassment at leftists is fun.

The best part about EMN is that you don't have to accuse him of anything. He just comes out and admits it.

 

[Hamish Howl]

I'm against this sort of shit.

It's worth mentioning that Trump was FOR it.

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

I'm siding with the Constitution Of The United States. . . . The Right to free speech.

Try and get this:
Social media is not free speech.
Someone or some group OWNS every social media platform.
Trump OWNS Truth Social and Zuckerberg OWNS Facebook or you can't comprehend that simple fact.
And I don't see you crying and having a tantrum when 45* boots someone off his platform.

And yes, that IS what you're doing, crying and having a tantrum.
Free speech isn't free on Twitter, Facebook, IG or Truth...you PAY FOR EVERY WORD.

Like I said: Try and get this.
Life is tough.
It's tougher when you're stupid.

 

[EMNofSeattle]

The best part about EMN is that you don't have to accuse him of anything. He just comes out and admits it.

It doesn’t really matter. The left is convinced mainstream political positions like reducing immigration and imposing tariffs on foreign imports is “literally Hitler” and a “threat to democracy”