[solardev]

I think it would have a chilling effect on social media providers who will have to think "how will our policies and practices look to California" (and other states with similar laws). If they have to report the changes every year, it basically strongly pressures a company to report that they are following whatever is politically correct at the moment. It's a slippery slope that approaches/enables prior restraint.

IMO only and IANAL.

[rgbrenner]

The law has no penalties for the policy you implement. So AB 587 isn't restraining any speech. If CA passes another law that uses the information to restrain speech, then that law may be unconstitutional. But AB 587 doesnt become unconstitutional by imagining all the ways it could be used unconstitutionally.

[jonas21]

That's not how the Supreme Court has ruled in the past. If a law makes people reluctant to exercise their first amendment rights because of the ways in which it can be used against them in the future - then it has a "chilling effect" and can be unconstitutional even if the law itself has no penalties.

In Lamont v. Postmaster General [1], the Supreme Court struck down a law requiring the recipient of Communist propaganda to state that they consented to receive it before it would be delivered. There was no penalty for doing so, but the court rule unanimously that it "imposes on the addressee an affirmative obligation which amounts to an unconstitutional limitation of his rights under the First Amendment."

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lamont_v._Postmaster_General

[solardev]

It's a pretty broad judgment call, isn't it? If it effectively chills speech, it could be a 1A issue. I guess it's up to the SC to interpret.

Thr lawsuit itself points out that, if nothing else, the California bill forces companies to editorialize on what speech is considered hateful etc. under California's guidelines. That categorization itself is a modern politicized process (especially in polarized states, deep blue or deep red) and different from older 1A protections. That wasn't my argument, but is part of the lawsuit.

[kelseyfrog]

The reality is that not doing it is also a slippery slope with greater incline. Avoiding one slope jeopardizes another.

[harpooniker]

How would it show they are following what it politically correct?

For example if they ban a post for something that would be reflected but if they don't that's not shown

[solardev]

Sorry, could you please rephrase that? Didn't quite catch it?

[harpooniker]

Can you provide an example of how it can chill political speech