Speech Smackdown

Sorry, Governor:

California's AB 587 was hailed by Gov. Gavin Newsom and Attorney General Rob Bonta as ensuring “social media transparency," but the Ninth Circuit Court ruled for the plaintiff — X — dismissing the law's reporting requirements "with prejudice." Loosely translated, that means, "Don't try anything 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. Free speech advocates argued that AB 587's reporting rules amounted to "censorship by proxy," and the Ninth apparently agreed. I'd strongly agree with the court. When you're required to report to the state attorney general each year what kind of content you're squashing — and what content you're allowing — politics can't help but come into the decision-making process.

Politics and free speech don't always go together...