Page 1 of 1

possible legislative threat

Posted: Sun Apr 08, 2018 5:31 am
by hanelyp
Are the server or administrators of this site in California?
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=201720180SB1424
This bill would require any person who operates a social media, as defined, Internet Web site with a physical presence in California to develop a strategic plan to verify news stories shared on its Web site. The bill would require the plan to include, among other things, a plan to mitigate the spread of false information through news stories, the utilization of fact-checkers to verify news stories, providing outreach to social media users, and placing a warning on a news story containing false information.

Re: possible legislative threat

Posted: Fri Oct 19, 2018 4:57 am
by PolyGirl
Send a message to Joe at "admin@talk-polywell.org. ". In regards to this problem.

Regards
Polygirl

Re: possible legislative threat

Posted: Fri Oct 19, 2018 5:54 am
by PolyGirl
If the CA government took someone to court over this legislation. Then the plaintiffs would use the first amendment to defend themselves.


  1. In New York Times v Sullivan (1964)
  2. Hustler Magazine v Falwell (1988)
  3. Rickert v Washington, (2007)
  4. United States v Alvarez (2012)

The First Amendment protects free speech in general, but not necessarily when it is obscene or threatening.

"Essentially, the government does not get to decide what is true or not true. Libel laws stand as the only counterpoint to free speech. To be considered libel, the offending speech must be published, untrue, harmful to your reputation, and in the case of public figures, also created with malice or reckless disregard for the truth. Creators and publishers of content can be sued for libel, but not distributors, e.g. a social media platform. Libel lawsuits are difficult to win, and the burden of proof is on the plaintiff." [1]

I will let you decide, what I think of this law. :D

Regards
Polygirl
[1] americanlibrariesmagazine

Re: possible legislative threat

Posted: Fri Oct 19, 2018 5:59 am
by hanelyp
Since the original post, the bill has morphed twice, first to a mostly harmless form, then to the form of a study committee on the issue, with much harder to predict long term fallout, passed the legislature, and been vetoed. It may return in future legislative sessions in some form, as the veto was for the specific form, and a new and possibly far worse governor will be elected soon.