[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.