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

[Simon W. Moon]

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.

Do you feel that requiring nutrition labels on food is also a violation of the First Amendment?

 

[NotreDame]

Do you feel that requiring nutrition labels on food is also a violation of the First Amendment?

First, this is compelled speech. So, the government must justify the compulsion. To do so, they must meet and satisfy three prong test.
But to compare laws requiring businesses sending to the market food for consumption to disclose facts about the contents of the food is vastly different from social media companies qualifying for speech protections under the free speech and free press clause.

Yes, social media companies do constitute as the “press” for purposes of the 1st amendment. Hence, the government would be required to meet a very high burden for compelling NYT to disclose publicly their policies as to what makes print, especially for the editorial pages, and fail legally, the same is true requiring Meta or any other forum that permits people to post publicly, as a paper does for its editorial pages, to disclose the information required by the Cali law. A free press means the government cannot compel the press to speak.

Second, for fun, the case law justifying those laws requiring nutrition labels do not save this Cali law.

The compelled speech of nutrition labels is permissible when the compelled information is A) purely factual and not misleading, (2) reasonably related to a substantial government interest, and (3) neither unjustified nor unduly burdensome.

A purpose of the law is, “The law is necessary to help shield Californians from online “hate and disinformation,” California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) said in a Sept. 13 statement.”

Yet, what constitutes as “hate” and “disinformation” is opinion, not reducible to “purely factual” as Campbells disclosing their soup as potatoes and carrots.

Next, there not being some agreed upon universal meaning of “hate” and “disinformation” the Cali law is not likely to meet its assumed “substantial interest” of “help shield Californians from online “hate and disinformation” with social media companies reporting a myriad of different meanings of “hate” and “disinformation.” Compounding the dizzying puzzle of what is being reported as “hate” and “disinformation” is that the wider public, the “Californians” themselves do not agree as to what is “hate” and “disinformation.”

This Cali law is as likely as to be the shining light of clear discernment of what is or isn’t hate speech and disinformation to Californians as the 7th Wonder of the World the Lighthouse of Alexandria is to illuminate to physicists the mystery of what actually does occur inside a black hole despite the fact no light escapes to do so.

The law is garbage. A tyrannical overreach by a legislature and governor less concerned with free speech and willing to trample it under foot for their illiberal proclivities.

 

[ColdHardTruth]

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.

There was an insurrection at the capitol because of the lies and propaganda that was spewed by Tucker Carlson, Sean Hannity, and the rest of the Russian propagandists at Faux. If there had been a way to prevent their baseless lies from getting to the MAGA terrorists, there may not have been an insurrection attempt.

Because Ronald Reagan made sure the Fairness Doctrine was removed, because Rupert Murdoch wanted it gone, there have been many issues with journalists reporting truthfully. While Faux is not even remotely about news and more about spreading propaganda and lies to the MAGA crowd, they are not really journalists. They are a cheap rag owned by a racist asshat from Australia. As a result, we cannot expect they would follow the first obligation of journalism, which is to report the truth.

That being said, maybe we need people who can stop the propaganda from reaching the MAGA terrorists.

 

[mrjurrs]

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.

You mean like food labels?

The speech is already posted, this is requiring them to disclose them again elsewhere.

 

[Simon W. Moon]

First, this is compelled speech. So, the government must justify the compulsion. To do so, they must meet and satisfy three prong test.
But to compare laws requiring businesses sending to the market food for consumption to disclose facts about the contents of the food is vastly different from social media companies qualifying for speech protections under the free speech and free press clause.

Yes, social media companies do constitute as the “press” for purposes of the 1st amendment. Hence, the government would be required to meet a very high burden for compelling NYT to disclose publicly their policies as to what makes print, especially for the editorial pages, and fail legally, the same is true requiring Meta or any other forum that permits people to post publicly, as a paper does for its editorial pages, to disclose the information required by the Cali law. A free press means the government cannot compel the press to speak.

Second, for fun, the case law justifying those laws requiring nutrition labels do not save this Cali law.

The compelled speech of nutrition labels is permissible when the compelled information is A) purely factual and not misleading, (2) reasonably related to a substantial government interest, and (3) neither unjustified nor unduly burdensome.

A purpose of the law is, “The law is necessary to help shield Californians from online “hate and disinformation,” California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) said in a Sept. 13 statement.”

Yet, what constitutes as “hate” and “disinformation” is opinion, not reducible to “purely factual” as Campbells disclosing their soup as potatoes and carrots.

Next, there not being some agreed upon universal meaning of “hate” and “disinformation” the Cali law is not likely to meet its assumed “substantial interest” of “help shield Californians from online “hate and disinformation” with social media companies reporting a myriad of different meanings of “hate” and “disinformation.” Compounding the dizzying puzzle of what is being reported as “hate” and “disinformation” is that the wider public, the “Californians” themselves do not agree as to what is “hate” and “disinformation.”

This Cali law is as likely as to be the shining light of clear discernment of what is or isn’t hate speech and disinformation to Californians as the 7th Wonder of the World the Lighthouse of Alexandria is to illuminate to physicists the mystery of what actually does occur inside a black hole despite the fact no light escapes to do so.

The law is garbage. A tyrannical overreach by a legislature and governor less concerned with free speech and willing to trample it under foot for their illiberal proclivities.

AfaIat, the law does require anyone to define hate.

The law requires companies to publicly post their policies and the data about it's enforcement.
What a policy is is a simple fact.
Data are simple facts.

Disinformation is not a matter of opinion, btw.

 

[NotreDame]

That being said, maybe we need people who can stop the propaganda from reaching the MAGA terrorists.

There was an insurrection at the capitol because of the lies and propaganda that was spewed by Tucker Carlson, Sean Hannity, and the rest of the Russian propagandists at Faux. If there had been a way to prevent their baseless lies from getting to the MAGA terrorists, there may not have been an insurrection attempt.

I do not care for your attempt to fallaciously invoke 1/6 and the associated lies as justification for this Cali law.

There’s no evidence or sound reasoned argument the Cali or law identical to Cali’s would make less likely, impede, or preclude lies associated with 1/6 or 1/6 itself. What the law requires and its purpose isn’t calculated to do so.

Second, an uncomfortable reality many people cannot accept, including the left wing, what is or isn’t misinformation, lies, deception, what is permissible in any of them, is generally and broadly not to be determined by the government. The government may rightly allow punishment, civil and/or criminal, of speech for its effects (effect of speech= reputation damage so libel/slander suits are available, public nuisance because of the time of day or location the speech, while constitutional, is made in such a manner as to disturb the peace because it is too loud, or the very high threshold for ciminalizing the effects of speech as incitement to violence, but those categories do not forbid the content of the message but forbid the effects, leaving in place the constitutionality off the content of the message of lies and misinformation.

What is truth, lies, misinformation, is generally and broadly to be ascertained in the public square of debate, discourse, and disagreement, and not dictated by the ministry of truth governmental agency.

And if this were 1780, you’d find yourself tarred and feathered. The founders and those at the time championed misinformation to foment hatred and dislike for their perceived oppressors, the British. This is documented in the new book, “The Common Cause: Creating Race and Nation in the American Revolution.” They surely would defend this as free speech, and those opposed would be British loyalists, worthy of a beating if not death.

I would be remiss if I did not mention, misinformation and lies as a tools in politics, was well known as a practice in Britain before the American colonies, practiced by the colonists, and practiced under a new government from 1789 onward.

Yes, Madison and Jefferson made a habit of spreading misinformation to newspapers about Treasurer Hamilton.

Misinformation and lies have existed as free speech since the Republic’s inception. Why? Because the government generally and broadly has no authority to dictate what is or isn’t misinformation or lies.

Because Ronald Reagan made sure the Fairness Doctrine was removed, because Rupert Murdoch wanted it gone, there have been many issues with journalists reporting truthfully. While Faux is not even remotely about news and more about spreading propaganda and lies to the MAGA crowd, they are not really journalists. They are a cheap rag owned by a racist asshat from Australia. As a result, we cannot expect they would follow the first obligation of journalism, which is to report the truth.

Oh, spare us your left wing rant cloaked in self-righteous free speech killing rhetoric.

The topic is the Cali law. The topic isn’t anything about the right, like the above, that makes you nauseous. There’s a remedy for that, Phengeran. Perhaps you could pop one or more, that ameliorates said nauseu, and you can then better focus upon the actual topic and issue!

 

[NotreDame]

You mean like food labels?

The speech is already posted, this is requiring them to disclose them again elsewhere.

No you assume, mistakenly, “like food labels.” The conspicuous differences, well your ignoring them, has you drawing a false parallel.

Second, “the speech is already posted” isn’t necessarily true, apparently.

The law requires entities to “post” their “terms of service” and do so “in a manner reasonably designed to inform all users of the social media platform of the existence and contents of the terms of service.”

“Terms of service” means “a policy or set of policies adopted by a social media company that specifies, at least, the user behavior and activities that are permitted on the internet-based service owned or operated by the social media company, and the user behavior and activities that may subject the user or an item of content to being actioned.”

The statute then proceeds enumerate, with specificity, additional information to be “posted. “
(b) The terms of service posted pursuant to subdivision (a) shall include all of the following:
(1) Contact information for the purpose of allowing users to ask the social media company questions about the terms of service.
(2) A description of the process that users must follow to flag content, groups, or other users that they believe violate the terms of service, and the social media company’s commitments on response and resolution time.
(3) A list of potential actions the social media company may take against an item of content or a user, including, but not limited to, removal, demonetization, deprioritization, or banning.”

So, ostensibly, the “speech” is not necessarily “already posted.”

 

[ColdHardTruth]

I do not care for your attempt to fallaciously invoke 1/6 and the associated lies as justification for this Cali law.

There’s no evidence or sound reasoned argument the Cali or law identical to Cali’s would make less likely, impede, or preclude lies associated with 1/6 or 1/6 itself. What the law requires and its purpose isn’t calculated to do so.

Second, an uncomfortable reality many people cannot accept, including the left wing, what is or isn’t misinformation, lies, deception, what is permissible in any of them, is generally and broadly not to be determined by the government. The government may rightly allow punishment, civil and/or criminal, of speech for its effects (effect of speech= reputation damage so libel/slander suits are available, public nuisance because of the time of day or location the speech, while constitutional, is made in such a manner as to disturb the peace because it is too loud, or the very high threshold for ciminalizing the effects of speech as incitement to violence, but those categories do not forbid the content of the message but forbid the effects, leaving in place the constitutionality off the content of the message of lies and misinformation.

What is truth, lies, misinformation, is generally and broadly to be ascertained in the public square of debate, discourse, and disagreement, and not dictated by the ministry of truth governmental agency.

Sounds like defense of baseless bullshit that cost people lives and let to an insurrection. Newsflash to you... shouting fire in a crowded theatre is NOT free speech. Deal with it.

And if this were 1780, you’d find yourself tarred and feathered. The founders and those at the time championed misinformation to foment hatred and dislike for their perceived oppressors, the British. This is documented in the new book, “The Common Cause: Creating Race and Nation in the American Revolution.” They surely would defend this as free speech, and those opposed would be British loyalists, worthy of a beating if not death.

Not likely.

I would be remiss if I did not mention, misinformation and lies as a tools in politics, was well known as a practice in Britain before the American colonies, practiced by the colonists, and practiced under a new government from 1789 onward.

Again, you're ducking the fact that what Faux did at the request of the orange anus was the equivalent of shouting "fire" in a crowded theatre.

Yes, Madison and Jefferson made a habit of spreading misinformation to newspapers about Treasurer Hamilton.

Not quite the same. This did not cause an attempted insurrection.

Misinformation and lies have existed as free speech since the Republic’s inception. Why? Because the government generally and broadly has no authority to dictate what is or isn’t misinformation or lies.

The government has already stated that shouting "fire" in a crowded theatre, when there is no fire, is NOT free speech.

Oh, spare us your left wing rant cloaked in self-righteous free speech killing rhetoric.

Everything I stated was correct and accurate. Learn to like it.

The topic is the Cali law. The topic isn’t anything about the right, like the above, that makes you nauseous. There’s a remedy for that, Phengeran. Perhaps you could pop one or more, that ameliorates said nauseu, and you can then better focus upon the actual topic and issue!

Perhaps you could stop pretending that the rules about shouting "fire" in a crowded theatre do not apply to trump terrorists.

 

[mrjurrs]

No you assume, mistakenly, “like food labels.” The conspicuous differences, well your ignoring them, has you drawing a false parallel.

Second, “the speech is already posted” isn’t necessarily true, apparently.

The law requires entities to “post” their “terms of service” and do so “in a manner reasonably designed to inform all users of the social media platform of the existence and contents of the terms of service.”

“Terms of service” means “a policy or set of policies adopted by a social media company that specifies, at least, the user behavior and activities that are permitted on the internet-based service owned or operated by the social media company, and the user behavior and activities that may subject the user or an item of content to being actioned.”

The statute then proceeds enumerate, with specificity, additional information to be “posted. “
(b) The terms of service posted pursuant to subdivision (a) shall include all of the following:
(1) Contact information for the purpose of allowing users to ask the social media company questions about the terms of service.
(2) A description of the process that users must follow to flag content, groups, or other users that they believe violate the terms of service, and the social media company’s commitments on response and resolution time.
(3) A list of potential actions the social media company may take against an item of content or a user, including, but not limited to, removal, demonetization, deprioritization, or banning.”

So, ostensibly, the “speech” is not necessarily “already posted.”

All of those things are already 'posted' in their TOS or addendums.

 

[NotreDame]

AfaIat, the law does require anyone to define hate.

The law requires companies to publicly post their policies and the data about it's enforcement.
What a policy is is a simple fact.
Data are simple facts.

Disinformation is not a matter of opinion, btw.

I never asserted the law to require any entity to define hate.

Second, your argument entirely ignores that social media entities are protected by the “press” clause. From this perspective, whether the required speech is purely factual, a legal standard for nutrition labels, is irrelevant. So, your focus upon what is or isn’t purely factual is remiss to analyze this law in relation to compelled speech for entities constituting as the “press.” The heightened legal standard for compelled speech of an entity of the press far surpasses the lower and relaxed standard of compelling businesses selling food for consumption to include the compelled speech of nutrition labels.

 

[NotreDame]

All of those things are already 'posted' in their TOS or addendums.

Again, ostensibly, this isn’t true. You ASSUME this is “already” done. Maybe for some. Maybe others have not.

Regardless, you obsess over a red herring as the law will immediately apply to those who do not already disclose public TOS as defined by statute. For these entities this is compelled speech.

 

[NotreDame]

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.

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

I can accept this as true, for purposes of arguendo, and say, so what? Free speech protects both.

And I have never encountered the phrase “manipulation below the level of cognition.” I’m sure you have some definition, conceptualization, rooted in some amount of objectivity and rationality. What is the meaning?

 

[NotreDame]

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

I’ll answer your question as soon as you can provide an argument why compelled speech here is justified, despite doing so is contrary to notions of free speech.

 

[Deuce]

I’ll answer your question as soon as you can provide an argument why compelled speech here is justified, despite doing so is contrary to notions of free speech.

Businesses routinely obfuscate their policies from their customers, they love burying things in 40 page user agreements that they know you wont read, and do so to their advantage.

 

[NotreDame]

Sounds like defense of baseless bullshit that cost people lives and let to an insurrection.



Not likely.



Again, you're ducking the fact that what Faux did at the request of the orange anus was the equivalent of shouting "fire" in a crowded theatre.


Not quite the same. This did not cause an attempted insurrection.


The government has already stated that shouting "fire" in a crowded theatre, when there is no fire, is NOT free speech.



Everything I stated was correct and accurate. Learn to like it.



Perhaps you could stop pretending that the rules about shouting "fire" in a crowded theatre do not apply to trump terrorists.

Ah the scholar here to demonstrate factually he’s no scholar.

Newsflash to you... shouting fire in a crowded theatre is NOT free speech. Deal with it.

Hey professor, “newsflash to you” the correct phrase is, “The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic.” Schenk v U.S. https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/249/47

“Deal with it,” ya couldn’t even use the correct phrasing.

Now, Double Jeopardy professor? The qualifying word “falsely” necessarily means a phrase involving “fire” and “shouted” and “thester” is constitutionally protected. What is the phrase “……” HINT: it is in your post!

The rest of your post is a vacuous, rant by you.

 

[mrjurrs]

Again, ostensibly, this isn’t true. You ASSUME this is “already” done. Maybe for some. Maybe others have not.

Regardless, you obsess over a red herring as the law will immediately apply to those who do not already disclose public TOS as defined by statute. For these entities this is compelled speech.

The TOS are already compelled speech per your definition.

All of these platforms know they are on borrowed time when it comes to their outstripping the regulation that needs to address how 'we the people' want them to use our commons, the infrastructure they use to distribute their business model.

 

[What if...?]

I can accept this as true, for purposes of arguendo, and say, so what? Free speech protects both.

And I have never encountered the phrase “manipulation below the level of cognition.” I’m sure you have some definition, conceptualization, rooted in some amount of objectivity and rationality. What is the meaning?

If I say things I know from a hundred years of research will cause you to have a predicable, repeatable emotional response, and you don’t know that I can and do do that, that is manipulation below the level of cognition.

Not something I convinced you of with reason. Something I made you angry, or excited about or afraid of, that You wouldn’t have felt that way about had i simply explained it to you so that you understood, that is manipulation below the level of cognition.

Multiple degree tracks study these techniques. And then the graduates go to work using their degrees for the power and profit of their employers.

Billions are spent every year on this. And they wouldn’t be getting that money if it didn’t work.

 

[ColdHardTruth]

Ah the scholar here to demonstrate factually he’s no scholar.



Hey professor, “newsflash to you” the correct phrase is, “The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic.” Schenk v U.S. https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/249/47

“Deal with it,” ya couldn’t even use the correct phrasing.

Now, Double Jeopardy professor? The qualifying word “falsely” necessarily means a phrase involving “fire” and “shouted” and “thester” is constitutionally protected. What is the phrase “……” HINT: it is in your post!

The rest of your post is a vacuous, rant by you.

No matter how I put it, you got it. The message was received. Cease the ad hom.