The state of California under Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) is attempting to force a censorship bill on social media companies, but X just dealt that effort a major blow.
Elon Musk’s X sued California Attorney General Rob Bonta to stop the enforcement of California Assembly Bill 587. In the name of “transparency,” the amendment to the Business and Professions Code demanded that tech companies be accountable to the state government for decisions on what and how much to censor. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit just ruled in X’s favor, agreeing that the California bill violates the U.S. Constitution and that the most objectionable sections of the bill must be altered.
The Feb. 25 circuit court ruling for X Corp. v. Bonta, declared “that subdivisions (a)(3), (a)(4)(A), and (a)(5) of California Business and Professions Code section 22677 violate the First Amendment of the United States Constitution facially and as applied to Plaintiff.”
The cited sections include a demand for a company’s definitions of “[h]ate speech or racism,” “[e]xtremism,” “[d]isinformation or misinformation,” and a “detailed description of content moderation practices used by the social media company.” All of this language is also used to describe and justify censorship.
In fact, MRC Vice President for Free Speech Dan Schneider stated, “Gavin Newsom can’t figure out why companies and people are fleeing California as if the whole state is on fire. He can’t seem to understand that micromanaging businesses and suppressing the rights of citizens goes too far, even for a radical state like his.” Schneider added, “Just as many Big Tech companies are returning to a respect for free speech rights – thanks to President Trump – the radical Left is doubling down on trying to control what people think, what they believe and how they live their lives. Even the left-wing courts in California have declared, ‘Enough!’”
The (a)(5) provision further requires exact numbers on flagged content and censored content. These are the provisions the circuit court just ruled were unconstitutional, and therefore could not be enforced against X. Had the court not ruled thus, X and other social media companies would have been required to submit reports twice a year to the California state government on how much of the content arbitrarily deemed “racist” etc. was targeted.
The question remains — why would the California government request that information? To what use would the information be put? Would the government demand more censorship if it deemed numbers too low?
X does not seem to have made an official statement online regarding the ruling, but the ruling does appear to be a major victory for free speech against government pressure to censor.
Conservatives are under attack. Contact your representatives and demand that Big Tech be held to account to mirror the First Amendment while providing transparency, clarity on “hate speech” and equal footing for conservatives. If you have been censored, contact us using CensorTrack’s contact form, and help us hold Big Tech accountable.
