������ýapp�ٷ�

Below is a statement from FIREDirector of Public Advocacy Aaron Terr on California :

How many unconstitutional laws can a state enact in one day? 

We already explained some of the problems with AB 2839, which criminalizes sharing digitally modified “deceptive content” about candidates for office for any reason, even to criticize it.

AB 2655 is no better. It forces large online platforms to censor on behalf of the state. 

Platforms must:

• Block “deceptive” content about politicians – even if it isn’t actually defamatory
• Respond to every single public complaint about “deceptive content” within 36 hours
• Filter and block any content that’s “substantially similar” to that previously removed

The law is a disaster for multiple reasons. It threatens Californians’ right to speak freely about politics in their state by saddling platforms with the impossible task of reviewing a deluge of complaints about allegedly deceptive content and quickly deciding whether it violates the statute. No doubt many of those complaints will be frivolous attempts to silence political adversaries. As we have seen in the context of the copyright notice-and-takedown system, platforms will likely make inaccurate judgments and err on the side of caution, suppressing massive amounts of constitutionally protected speech to avoid being constantly dragged into court.

The bill also erodes platforms’ First Amendment right to decide what content to host, and it’s preempted by Section 230, the federal law that protects Americans’ right to speak online by immunizing online platforms from liability for users’ speech. 

This is the exact scenario Section 230 is meant to prevent. This California law is a stark reminder of why both the First Amendment and Section 230 are essential to preserving free expression on the internet.