California Senate Bill 771 Sparks First Amendment Showdown
Both the left and the right are united in opposition to this bill, which is now headed to Gov. Gavin Newsom’s desk.
While the national attention has been focused on the assassination of Turning Point leader Charlie Kirk and the ensuing Jimmy Kimmel pseudo-drama supposedly about “freedom of speech”, California has mounted a serious attack on our liberties related to personal expression.
California’s legislature has advanced Senate Bill 771, a controversial proposal aimed at holding social media companies accountable for amplifying harmful content through their algorithms. Introduced by Senator Henry Stern, the measure would impose steep fines (up to $1 million per intentional violation) on platforms that are accused of failing to “prevent the spread of online harassment targeting marginalized groups.”
Right-leaning accounts and personalities on social media have been recently posting about Senate Bill 771, warning it could severely limit free speech, force social media companies to delete accounts and push people to pay hefty fines for saying the wrong thing. Supporters of the bill say that’s not accurate.
SB 771 specifically targets social media platforms for the role they could play in aiding and abetting in hate crimes by pushing content that could lead to a hate crime.
Current law already provides penalties against individual people who aid, abet or conspire to commit acts of violence against people based on race, religion, gender, sexual orientation and other protected characteristics. State Sen. Henry Stern, who wrote the law, said this would ensure major online platforms are held accountable similar to the way people are for the crime.
HOLY CR*P 🚨 The day Charlie Kirk was killed and everyone was focused on that, Gavin Newsom and California Democrats rammed through an online censorship bill
PENALTIES
– If you post something on social media anywhere online that the state of California deems to be hateful,… pic.twitter.com/DekJ0PRFA6
— Wall Street Apes (@WallStreetApes) September 23, 2025
SB 771 passed the state Senate earlier this year and the Assembly on September 10, receiving Senate concurrence on September 16. The bill now awaits Governor Gavin Newsom’s decision.
Under SB 771’s provisions, platforms could face fines of up to $500,000 for reckless violations and $1 million for intentional ones. Liability would extend to any social media company operating in California, giving the state new authority to enforce digital oversight.
I would think that places a big target on X.com, which has become a very popular and much more balanced source for information and discussion of current events.
The definition of “marginalized groups” features all the leftist favorites, with Jewish people thrown in to give it some “balance”.
(b) California has a compelling interest in protecting its residents from targeted threats, violence, and coercive harassment, particularly when directed at historically marginalized groups. That interest is especially acute in light of rising incidents of hate-motivated harm, as documented across the state, as follows:
(1) The Los Angeles County Commission on Human Relations reported in December 2024 that hate crimes involving anti-immigrant slurs increased by 31 percent, which marks the highest number since tracking began in 2007.
(2) The Human Rights Campaign and the Center for Countering Digital Hate have documented a 400-percent rise in anti-LGBTQ+ disinformation and harmful rhetoric on major social media platforms.
(3) According to Department of Justice data, anti-Jewish bias events rose by 52.9 percent and anti-Islamic bias events rose by 62 percent in 2023.
(4) A 2023 study by the nonprofit Global Witness demonstrated that paid advertisements promoting violence against women, including language calling for beatings and killings, were successfully placed and distributed on major social media platforms.
Industry representatives, including the Computer & Communications Industry Association (CCIA), have pushed back against the proposal. The CCIA has expressed deep concerns that the bill poses a threat to free speech and imposes vague legal risks for social media companies.
For example, SB 771 would allow lawsuits against large social media platforms if their algorithms or recommendation systems are accused of amplifying unlawful content aimed at protected groups. CCIA asserts that its broad language and the potential for costly lawsuits would push platforms to over-censor, resulting in the removal of lawful, protected speech to avoid litigation.
CCIA also argues that the legislation violates the Constitution as well as current communications regulations.
CCIA believes this approach would reduce the availability of protected speech and place platforms in a legally precarious position. The bill also raises serious concerns about First Amendment protections and may conflict with Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which shields online services from liability for content moderation carried out in good faith.
Given the progressive antics of California politicians, it would be easy to see how California could become the UK on the West Coast, but with fines being the punishment rather than jail.
I must also note for the record that many leftist organizations are opposed to this inanity as well.
But here’s the remarkable part: nearly every corner of California’s progressive activist community is against this bill.
The opposition list includes: (there are many more opposed)
• Code Pink chapters statewide
• Democratic Socialists of America (East Bay & San Francisco)
• Council on American-Islamic Relations, California (CAIR-CA)
• Democrats for Palestinian Rights – Bay Area
• Jewish Voice for Peace chapters (Bay Area, LA, Sacramento, San Diego, South Bay)
• IfNotNow California
• Hindus for Human Rights
• Earth Loves Gaza, Ground Game LA, Human Agenda
Newsom’s choice will be pivotal: A veto would halt the proposal and add to the “centrist” resume he is trying to pad ahead of the 2028 election. On the other hand, approval would demonstrate that the governor values speech only when it supports his narratives, and California will slide further down the slope of socialism.
Additionally, the state’s taxpayers will need to contribute more money from their depleted coffers to fund the court cases that will be launched if SB 771 passes.
When I die, I am going to heaven. That’s because I am already doing my time in the Purgatory of California. https://t.co/XGIRnFJfmm
— Leslie Eastman ☥ (@Mutnodjmet) September 26, 2025
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
California is no longer a part of the United States.
TWANLOC
Agree. Revert to territory status and open up negotiations with Mexico to give it away.
But not before a big beautiful wall is built along the border.
I still think it’s more valuable as a bargaining chip to persuade Putin to stop hammering Ukraine. Plus, the food wouldn’t be as monotonous, and Disney would get a valuable political lesson.
Looks like they’re taking a page out of the UK Laborthought control playback. They should secede from the US to become a British colony….. part of the Commiewealth….
UK. United Kommiefornia
Hate speech is OK when Communist do it.
Let LA and the SF Bay area go their merry way and let the rest of the state remain behind.
Wait. Here’s the question no one is asking. Why does it apply only to “marginalized” people,? Is CA okay with amplifying harmful content if it targets non-marginalized people? Does that make sense to anyone?
As always, this makes whoever is defining the groups a Very Important Person.
Bingo. And such definitions are subject to change depending on the direction of the political winds. There is nothing good about this nightmare.
Because the entire point of crap like this is to use vaguely-defined terms whose definitions can change at the drop of a hat to force companies to go way beyond what the law technically says to avoid insane leftists in government making them spend years in court.
This applies only to marginalized people. Is the some 1st amendment exception for marginalized people, because if there is, I must have missed it.
You have a right to amplify harmful content for non-marginalized, but not marginalized. Yeah, I’m sure there’s something in the first amendment about that. LOL
These days, leftists, demoncrats, ANTIFA fascists, and the trashmedia all marginalize white males. Given Greaseball Gruesom’s corruption and communist inclinations, I doubt that’s who he’s trying to pander to.
Did you notice that ‘marginalized groups’ only vote Democrat?
This seems to be different from say the late 1850’s. Then, there were two major political/cultural/social power blocs. Today we seem to have a number of each with incompatible demands and beliefs. And they are not joined geographically or economically. Toss in the urban-rural divide [and what it takes to keep an urban area habitable regardless of political leanings] and unpleasant times are approaching. I would note that in this specific case [SB-771] that the Left’s contempt for the Constitution is even more blatant than usual. It is beginning to feel downright like modern britain.
Subotai Bahadur
That was Obama’s genius. Divide and conquer works much more effectively with increasingly large values of the divisor.
“Both the left and the right are united in opposition to this bill”
Hey, Gavvy!
NO KINGS!!!!
I agree, but then how did it pass the legislature?
Meat autopens.
“SB 771 specifically targets social media platforms for the role they could play in aiding and abetting in hate crimes.”
In Idiotville aka CA, hate crimes are whatever makes leftist snowflakes feel uncomfortable, “forcing them” into violent “retribution.”
No way can this pass the Supreme Court.
Or what not printed press as well?
But it takes time to get to and through the Supreme Court. What they may be hoping is that they can censor speech through the midterms.
Subotai Bahadur
I would expect this to be enjoined immediately.
So will Newsom face the consequences of telling his minions to punch us in the face?
Those penalties seemed aimed at individuals too. And what if you don’t live in CA? Are they going to send out warrants for us non-CA residents who offend Sacramento and try to extradite us?
So basically all the groups getting Woke privilege are protected from any and all criticism, plus the rare Other e.g. Jews, while those cheering and promoting the murder of Kirk and other Conservatives remain safe to continue doing so?
That seems unconstitutional to me! Also dangerous!!!
It’s odd that so many Leftist groups are protesting the bill, but I won’t object to that moment of sanity.
So when you say only females can have babies or there is no way a person can ever change their sex, is that going to be called hate speech? So someone who says you can, which is scientifically false, is ok, but someone who points out the truth gets censored or potentially fined.
Define marginalized groups? CA majority non-white now?
“Marginalized” means Democrat voting blocs, usually mainstream.
One more good reason to just NOT GO there.
And should anyone living in another state wander in to this cesspit o legal insanity, just stay away. They’d have to get a national indictment to come take me away ha ha ha ha.