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.
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.
CLICK HERE FOR FULL VERSION OF THIS STORY