A federal court ruled in favor of the First Amendment on Wednesday, declaring California’s content moderation laws to be a violation of Americans’ rights to free speech.
Radical leftist California lawmakers designed Assembly Bill 587 to supposedly fight extremism, so-called “hate speech,” and online misinformation — entirely objective terms that the left is known for manipulating to target conservatives for censorship.
The controversial law, which took effect on January 1, 2024, would have required social media companies to disclose to the state all details of their content moderation policies or face civil penalties. The measure also required large social media platforms to consistently published reports about their content moderation policies to include data regarding the number of posts deemed “objectionable” and what actions the platform has taken to censor them.
Elon Musk’s X Corp filed a lawsuit challenging Assembly Bill 587 in September 2023, arguing that the measure would force social media companies such as X “to remove, demonetize, or deprioritize constitutionally-protected speech that the State deems undesirable or harmful” which would interfere “with the constitutionally-protected editorial judgments” of the company.
X further argued in the lawsuit that California’s censorship law “places an unjustified and undue burden” on social media companies.
.@ElonMusk's @X files historic First Amendment lawsuit against new California censorship regime:
"As made clear by both the legislative history and public court submissions from the Attorney General in defending the law, the true intent of AB 587 is to pressure social media…
— Tom Fitton (@TomFitton) September 10, 2023
On Wednesday, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco ruled in X’s favor, overturning a decision from a lower court that refused to pause enforcement of the law. The three-judge panel noted in its ruling that the law facially violated the First Amendment.
“X Corp. is likely to succeed in showing that the Content Category Report provisions facially violate the First Amendment,” Judge Milan D. Smith Jr. wrote in his opinion.
A California law requiring social media companies to filed detailed reports about their actions taken to prevent “hate speech, racism, extremism, radicalization, disinformation, misinformation, harassment, and foreign political interference” has been blocked by the 9th Circuit… pic.twitter.com/5Pzulm5pLq
— Laura Powell (@LauraPowellEsq) September 4, 2024
The official account for X’s Global Government Affairs celebrated the federal court’s ruling in a post, which read: “Today, a bipartisan panel of judges unanimously ruled in favor of X and against a California law that seeks to regulate speech on social media platforms. This is not just a victory for our platform, but also for free speech nationwide. Whether in the United States or around the world, X will always fight for free speech and against government efforts to restrict people’s right to express themselves.”
Today, a bipartisan panel of judges unanimously ruled in favor of X and against a California law that seeks to regulate speech on social media platforms.
This is not just a victory for our platform, but also for free speech nationwide.
Whether in the United States or around the…
— Global Government Affairs (@GlobalAffairs) September 4, 2024
