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

[NotreDame]

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.

Your right to know, in this context of social media websites, isn’t paramount to the free speech right not to speak.

Here’s a novel idea, telling a lie is free speech! (Excluding libel/slander).

Determining what is or isn’t a lie is not the proper role of a government respecting freedom and liberty. Regulating truth and lies is what authoritarian and illiberal governments seek. Yes, the proverbial thought control is inextricably linked to a government seeking to formally recognize by law that which is truth from a lie by means of compelling speech or forbidding speech.

Which, interestingly enough, your “right now” is no more rationally to identify and distinguish truth from falsity, reality from fiction, honesty from a lie.

 

[NotreDame]

Well, champion liars, anyway.

They got us January 6th. By taking advantage of all those free distribution networks.

Millions of my fellow Americans lied into a sad, frightening alternative reality that only exists if one is a consumer of conservative media.

Nobody outside your silos agrees with your assessment of the world we all live in. Nobody.

Free speech benefits you, yeah, because it allows you to “champion” the “lie”(using an example here) that the person you are addressing has espoused a view to “champion liars.”

By some means of illogical thinking you’ve equated an argument asserting a state law is unconstitutional because it compels speech with “champion liars.” You may as well have said 2 plus 2=5.

I mean, such a gross distortion of another’s POV is precisely and exactly the social ill, the illogical reasoning, leading so many other astray and wastes the time of logical thinking people having to read it and address it.

Let’s pass a law requiring social media sites and forums to disclose the poster name of number of times they have distorted another’s view. This way we can all potentially be informed, including the parents, in advance of whose posts are likely illogical posts and potentially lead us astray from the truth.

 

[NotreDame]

I hafta ask
You said you don't understand the bit you quoted.
But you also suspect it somehow violates First Amendment rights?

Can you explain how First Amendment rights are being violated?
That part is entirely unclear from your post or the linked news release
Are you assuming that "report data on their enforcement of the policies" means the Companies are being asked to provide names and addresses?
If so, why are you assuming that?

Potentially, social media companies are being compelled to enage in speech and to speak, by this law. Free speech includes the right not to speak, not enage in speech, and not be compelled by the government to do either one.

 

[NotreDame]

No, it doesn't. It makes a social media company accountable for simply reporting their TOS (or whatever one wishes to call it) to the Attorney General. There is a fine involved per day if the company does not release its TOS to the AG within the bill. In order for what you are talking about to happen is to revoke Section 230 (which Trump tried to do with the FCC)...which this bill does not do.

I think you may be mis-understanding what this bill is and does.

Now, if you have privacy issues with this bill, then you might have a leg to stand on. But there are no infringements on the First Amendment in this bill.

Assuming being compelled to speak and engage in speech by the law does not implicate free speech. But free speech has long been recognized as including the right not to speak and not be compelled to speak. This law potentially implicates this aspect of free speech.

 

[Deuce]

Your broad statement, with no case or statute given to support your comment, is problematic.

What are you basing your comment upon?

Businesses, AKA corporate entity, do not lose 1st amendment free speech rights because, after all, people, human beings, are engaged in the speech in a collective manner through a business and corporate entity. Such collective speech by human beings is no less protected speech on the basis of the nature of the group, a business/corporate entity as opposed to a fraternity, sorority, club, etcetera. See Citizens United and the lengthy cases recognizing 1st amendment free speech extends to businesses/corporations.

The government is compelling speech here. Compelled speech by the government is forbidden and must satisfy strict scrutiny. Unless the speech involved is commercial speech, such as advertising/advertisements to buy a product. But commercial speech is not at issue here, but rather, a state law is compelling a private entity to speak.

Compelled speech historically has failed the speech clauses. See West Virginia v Barnette (compelled speech to recite the POA), Wooley v Maynard (must displayState motto on license plate), Hurley v Irish American Gay (public accommodation law cannot be used to force an expressive messge), Janus v American Federation, state law requiring non-union members to pay agency fees for the union to engage in collective bargaining and related activities is compelled speech, see Abood decision that state law forcing non-union members to fund, by dues, speech/activity not germane to collective bargaining was compelled speech, National Institute of Family v. Becerra the law that required clinics that provide health service to pregnant women to include certain notices was compelled speech and unconventional (parallel in ways to the present law).

The identity of the speaker as a business/corporation does not ipso facto justify compelled speech, despite your treatment to the contrary.

A for-profit business' content moderation policies are very clearly part of a commercial operation.

 

[PeacefulWarrior]

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.

Sounds good.
Great job Governor Gavin!

 

[What if...?]

Your right to know, in this context of social media websites, isn’t paramount to the free speech right not to speak.

Here’s a novel idea, telling a lie is free speech! (Excluding libel/slander).

Determining what is or isn’t a lie is not the proper role of a government respecting freedom and liberty. Regulating truth and lies is what authoritarian and illiberal governments seek. Yes, the proverbial thought control is inextricably linked to a government seeking to formally recognize by law that which is truth from a lie by means of compelling speech or forbidding speech.

Which, interestingly enough, your “right now” is no more rationally to identify and distinguish truth from falsity, reality from fiction, honesty from a lie.

Your position ignores the science of persuasion, where lies can be turned into truth through manipulation below the level of cognition.

It’s not about the content, the ideas. It’s that they are literally installed, bypassing reason by applying emotional reactions to topics. Ills are a feedback loop, letting them know what lies are taking and which ones are being rejected.

Sometimes that rejection is a bonus as it provides a mechanism to get people to reject other things.

We called trumps lies about the election the Big Lie. It should always have been in caps because it is the name of a technique that they study in their degrees. And there are multiple tracks at this point.

 

[What if...?]

Free speech benefits you, yeah, because it allows you to “champion” the “lie”(using an example here) that the person you are addressing has espoused a view to “champion liars.”

By some means of illogical thinking you’ve equated an argument asserting a state law is unconstitutional because it compels speech with “champion liars.” You may as well have said 2 plus 2=5.

I mean, such a gross distortion of another’s POV is precisely and exactly the social ill, the illogical reasoning, leading so many other astray and wastes the time of logical thinking people having to read it and address it.

Let’s pass a law requiring social media sites and forums to disclose the poster name of number of times they have distorted another’s view. This way we can all potentially be informed, including the parents, in advance of whose posts are likely illogical posts and potentially lead us astray from the truth.

I actually would like to see an app that identifies manipulation techniques both written and spoken.

They go to school to learn how to do this, to learn the techniques and how they work on us.

Their textbooks could be reverse engineered and an AI created to parse them.

So it won’t tell you a post is a lie. But it will identify the emotions the narrative attempts to attach to the subject at hand.

Persuasion science is not interested in veracity. It is emotion based. Neurochemical stimuli. They don’t have to convince people of things with facts.

All they need to do is make people mad at or fearful of a subject. Hell, they can make you mad at new things by talking about them while talking about other things they’ve already made you mad at and that anger will just attach to the new thing.

This is multiple multi-billion dollar industries with multiple degree tracks.

Because it works. We have millions right now who believe the last election was stolen when nobody has been able to provide any evidence to that effect. Thei period will become part of their curricula going forward, a subject of study.

I came here twelve years ago to discuss this topic. Predicted much of what we’ve seen the past few years. And I was roundly mocked, by both sides. But we’ve seen the things I was on about then play out in real-time. Watched the Big Lie technique play out, culminating in the assault on the Capitol.

Again, it isn’t the ideas, it’s the installation of those ideas without the installees knowledge that is the problem.

 

[mrjurrs]

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.

That means that you can 'search' for specific language or restrictions. Free speech does not mean you can say everything you want everywhere you want. If you speak about puppies and rainbows too loudly, you can be asked to leave the library. Any poster can say almost anything they post anywhere else. Restricting speech through a particular platform is not the restriction of speech.

What is your constitutional basis for claiming that publishing lists of spam callers in unconstitutional?

By the way, CA taxpayers are not funding this directly. Our covid recovery has generated a current surplus of $97 billion.

How big is California's historic budget, visualized

Where does the historic California budget rank compared to previous budgets, and just how big is $300 billion?

calmatters.org

 

[mrjurrs]

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.

The Constitution would prefer you understand it if you are going to stand with it.

 

[Simon W. Moon]

Potentially, social media companies are being compelled to enage in speech and to speak, by this law. Free speech includes the right not to speak, not enage in speech, and not be compelled by the government to do either one.

What speech is being compelled by requiring the companies to post their policies and enforcement data?

Are you saying the publicizing the companies' policies and enforcement data is the speech which is being compelled?

Or are you mixing this CA bill up w/ the TX law which prevents social media companies from enforcing their terms of service?

 

[Lovebug]

I don't see how requiring social media companies to publicly post their policies and TOS is limiting free speech.

 

[Somerville]

For some reason, the whole "free speech" argument is being used in rather odd ways that seem to me at least, to be rather contradictory.
,
Some readers may remember a SCOTUS case, Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (2010), that ruled corporations were to be viewed as individuals with the right to donate money to politicians and political causes, based on the Free Speech clause in the First Amendment. Some 'conservative' states appear to have differing views as to how the concept of Free Speech is to be understood.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit has ruled that Texas law HB20, which seeks to stop platforms from removing posts if the removal can be viewed as discriminating against a “viewpoint,” does not violate the First Amendment rights of social media platforms that argue it is unconstitutional and that they have a right not to host speech they deem to be objectionable.

and in 2021, the state of Idaho passed a law limiting Free Speech when the words spoken or written relate to abortion. This past week, the Univ of Idaha put out a 'memo' telling university staff that they couldn't discuss abortion while working.

University of Idaho prohibits promoting or discussing abortion​

The University of Idaho issued a memo on Friday warning employees to not promote or discuss abortion while using the institution’s funds and facilities.
[. . .]
The school asked that birth control not be advertised or promoted, but will allow condoms to still be distributed to prevent STDs, the memo said.

The university’s staff is not allowed to “provide emergency contraception except in the case of rape,” per The Hill. The rules for classroom discussions on the subject are stringent as well.

“Academic freedom is not a defense to violation of law,” the memo said, asking all staff to remain neutral and avoid violating the law that favor abortion.

 

[NotreDame]

What speech is being compelled by requiring the companies to post their policies and enforcement data?

Are you saying the publicizing the companies' policies and enforcement data is the speech which is being compelled?

Or are you mixing this CA bill up w/ the TX law which prevents social media companies from enforcing their terms of service?

The required disclosures constitute as “speech.” Literally, the disclosures communicate a message, statements, and is speech.

Yes, posting in writing “policies” is to enage in “speech” as the “policies” themselves communicate a message, make statements, and the policies are “speech.” Requiring a social media company, by state law, to post those policies is compelling the social media company to engage in speech.

 

[noonereal]

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.

Bullshit.
Free speech is used as a get out of jail free card for saying things that should not he said for the good of society. Our forefathers only wanted differing ideas expressed not to create the dangers it has allowed.

 

[NotreDame]

A for-profit business' content moderation policies are very clearly part of a commercial operation.

So what? Commercial speech,
defined as speech promoting commerce, such as speech a business brand, product, good, service, and voluntarily spoken by the company is commercial speech. Commercial speech is speech under the 1st amendment. Commercial speech does receive 1st amendment protection from state regulation and law.

However, the portion of the Cali law discussed is compelling speech, by your very logic, compelling commercial speech.

So, the fact nondisclosed moderation policies may be “part of a commercial operation,” which by the way does not automatically mean commercial speech but I’ll assume arguendo here, doesn’t justify a state compelling some entity, here social media, to engage in speech, specifically commercial speech.

Free speech includes the right not to speak. Hence, free speech protects Ford from wing compelled by state or federal law to create/enage in speech, commercial speech, by advertising gas guzzling cars.

Yes, the state of Texas, believing Californians have gone right off the cliff with a ban on sales of gas cars by 2035, passes a law requiring Ford to engage in speech, commercial speech, that promotes the use of gas cars.

Yes, your view justifies state power to compel entries to create/enaged in commercial speech, speech that is “part of commercial operation.” That logic justifies the Texas law.

Yet, compelled speech, including compelling commercial speech, is contrary to notions of free speech, where to be free to speak includes freedom to not speak. Hence, as I said before, compelled speech has not faired well at the Court, and is not legally justified here.

 

[NotreDame]

Your position ignores the science of persuasion, where lies can be turned into truth through manipulation below the level of cognition.

It’s not about the content, the ideas. It’s that they are literally installed, bypassing reason by applying emotional reactions to topics. Ills are a feedback loop, letting them know what lies are taking and which ones are being rejected.

Sometimes that rejection is a bonus as it provides a mechanism to get people to reject other things.

We called trumps lies about the election the Big Lie. It should always have been in caps because it is the name of a technique that they study in their degrees. And there are multiple tracks at this point.

No, the “science of persuasion” can be exactly as you stated, and the 1st amendment free speech clause affords protection anyway.

Which, by the way, a lot of speech is inherently persuasive, it is merely a matter of degree, and the free speech clause isn’t it parceling speech for protection based upon howwell someone or some message sucks at persuasiveness or is highly persuasive.

The fact you can rationalize censorship of free speech doesn’t make it any less censorship of free speech.

Which, by the way, some entity may deem your message dangerously persuasive. Dangerous for advocating censorship, dangerous as in this environment of heightened thirst to trample free speech, and doing so based on bad logic, as your entire argument ignores the fact that free speech protects exactly you protest, your message above is now illegal.

What is a lie or is not a lie is not for the government to regulate. Historically, Truth Ministries at the government level have fared how well at protecting free speech? Right, not so well. If free speech means anything it means the government does not have the authority to declare what messges are false and render them for obsoletion by censorship.

A Truth Ministry can deem your message as false, declare your message to be deleted. Sauce for the goose, sauce for the gander.

 

[beefheart]

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.

You think that posting on a private site like Facebook, subject to terms and conditions is subject to free speech?

FFS, you are posting on a board where you have to accept the TOS, you choose to post you choose to accept the conditions.

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

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

And he even ADMITS that he doesn't know what the hell he's talking about but that's never stopped @SkyChief from pretending he's an expert.
SkyChief, explain how a privately owned and operated subscriber platform is bound by First Amendment rights.
Because if your argument is constitutionally correct I might just squat in your living room for the next ten years with a PA system.
After all, I have First Amendment rights even on your property, even in YOUR HOME, and if you try to do anything about it, you're going to wind up in court as the defendant.
And if your argument is right, you're going to lose the case...badly.

 

[What if...?]

No, the “science of persuasion” can be exactly as you stated, and the 1st amendment free speech clause affords protection anyway.

Which, by the way, a lot of speech is inherently persuasive, it is merely a matter of degree, and the free speech clause isn’t it parceling speech for protection based upon howwell someone or some message sucks at persuasiveness or is highly persuasive.

The fact you can rationalize censorship of free speech doesn’t make it any less censorship of free speech.

Which, by the way, some entity may deem your message dangerously persuasive. Dangerous for advocating censorship, dangerous as in this environment of heightened thirst to trample free speech, and doing so based on bad logic, as your entire argument ignores the fact that free speech protects exactly you protest, your message above is now illegal.

What is a lie or is not a lie is not for the government to regulate. Historically, Truth Ministries at the government level have fared how well at protecting free speech? Right, not so well. If free speech means anything it means the government does not have the authority to declare what messges are false and render them for obsoletion by censorship.

A Truth Ministry can deem your message as false, declare your message to be deleted. Sauce for the goose, sauce for the gander.

There is a difference between being persuasive and manipulation below the level of cognition.

But I suspect from the post above that you know that. And that post was not for me but for those who might have gone “hmmm” when they read it.

I’ll let you know after watching you for a bit.

 

[Integrityrespec]

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”

The left pretty much doesn't want any restrictions on their policy agenda and their social justice campaign.

 

[Deuce]

So what? Commercial speech,
defined as speech promoting commerce, such as speech a business brand, product, good, service, and voluntarily spoken by the company is commercial speech. Commercial speech is speech under the 1st amendment. Commercial speech does receive 1st amendment protection from state regulation and law.

However, the portion of the Cali law discussed is compelling speech, by your very logic, compelling commercial speech.

So, the fact nondisclosed moderation policies may be “part of a commercial operation,” which by the way does not automatically mean commercial speech but I’ll assume arguendo here, doesn’t justify a state compelling some entity, here social media, to engage in speech, specifically commercial speech.

Free speech includes the right not to speak. Hence, free speech protects Ford from wing compelled by state or federal law to create/enage in speech, commercial speech, by advertising gas guzzling cars.

Yes, the state of Texas, believing Californians have gone right off the cliff with a ban on sales of gas cars by 2035, passes a law requiring Ford to engage in speech, commercial speech, that promotes the use of gas cars.

Yes, your view justifies state power to compel entries to create/enaged in commercial speech, speech that is “part of commercial operation.” That logic justifies the Texas law.

Yet, compelled speech, including compelling commercial speech, is contrary to notions of free speech, where to be free to speak includes freedom to not speak. Hence, as I said before, compelled speech has not faired well at the Court, and is not legally justified here.

So, your claim then is that every single mandatory reporting in the history of business is unconstitutional?

 

[Glitch]

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.

AB 587 is without a doubt unconstitutional.

It not only violates the First Amendment, but also the Fourth Amendment. Government is not entitled to any information unless they can demonstrate probable cause or have a court-issued warrant for such information. They had also better be able to prove a crime was committed, will be committed, or is in the process of being committed, otherwise government is entitled to absolutely nothing.

If I had a social media business based in California, I was refuse to comply with the law. Should they attempt to enforce this blatantly unconstitutional law, I would sue and win.

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

Why the **** don't (CAN'T) all these iconic conservatives answer the simplest questions?

 

[Deuce]

AB 587 is without a doubt unconstitutional.

It not only violates the First Amendment, but also the Fourth Amendment. Government is not entitled to any information unless they can demonstrate probable cause or have a court-issued warrant for such information. They had also better be able to prove a crime was committed, will be committed, or is in the process of being committed, otherwise government is entitled to absolutely nothing.

If I had a social media business based in California, I was refuse to comply with the law. Should they attempt to enforce this blatantly unconstitutional law, I would sue and win.

uhh there aren't any criminal charges involved in this bill, what re you talking about?