Courts support California politicians under speech control, weapons

From And WaltersCalmness

This comment was originally published by CalmattersS Register about their ballots.

Governor Gavin Newo and his colleagues Democrats in the legislature are constantly thinking President Donald Trump for trampling civil rights in his lust to power.

Their current driving to Gerimander’s sanction Since the 52 California Congress, which adds five democratic places, it has been combined with claims that this would help Trump’s bumping authoritarian trends. One Proposition 50 Ad He describes Trump’s campaign for the Garymandri Probublikan Garymandri, using a language related to Hitler and Germany from World War II.

However, since Newsom, etc., the pose as the rescuers of democracy, they did not hesitate to violate the constitutional rights themselves.

For example, California’s restrictive laws governing arms possession adverse decisions from federal judges In recent months, which have applied the interpretation of the Supreme Court of Constitutional Law to carry a weapon. In the past, Newsom condemned the judges who runs against them as toadies of the firearms industry.

However, California’s willingness to gather constitutional rights extends beyond weapons. Newsom and legislators will also challenge the constitutionally protected free speech if it comes from those on the other side of the political division.

Last year, in response to some political parodies that used images created by artificial intelligence, including one that piloted Vice President Kamala Harris, the legislature has adopted and Newsom signed two measures to ban such tomfuria.

One, Assembly Bill 2655Called DeepFake’s defense democracy, he ordered social media platforms to block or label fictional materials generated by AI. Babylon bee, which generates the right satire, and the Social Media Social Media site filed a claim for annulment of the law. A month ago Federal Judge John Mendes hit him For violation of the Federal Law on Communication Dentation, which provides immunity to third -party publication platforms.

Mendes surrounded the plaintiffs that the measure has not confused the rights to free speech. However, he indicated that the second measure, Assembly Bill 2839Did the constitution violate. Last week, Mendes took this step forward by announcing that by banning materials Deepfake within 120 days after election, AB 2839 limited free speechS

“To be sure, deepfakes and artificially manipulated media may be significant risks to the turnout, but the challenges launched by digital content on a global scale cannot be canceled by censorship or legislative fiat,” Mend for the Government can not dictate cannon. sterils comforts political content. “

The judge also noted that the State Constitution was defending speech, so “it follows that AB 2839 violated the California Constitution for all the same reasons, that it violated the first amendment to the United States Constitution.”

Although the two court bills have been taken down, California politicians seem to be bent again, trying to influence what Californians can be told through social media and the Internet.

Senate Bill 771Which is waiting for action in the last days of the session in 2025, would increase civil penalties that may be imposed on media platforms for content that violates the laws that prohibit threats or intimidation.

It stems from the often bitter debate about Israel’s invasion of Hamas’s deadly attack on Israel two years ago. The bill is mainly sponsored by pro-Israeli groups, which say it is necessary to block anti-Semitic threats. However, groups such as the US-Islamic Relations Council claim that opening potential financial sanctions would encourage platforms to reduce or eliminate criticism of war.

The analysis of the Judicial Commission of the Assembly suggested that if the SB 771 was entered into force, it could face the federal law protecting the media platforms from liability for the content of third parties, the same law cited by Mendes in his decision on the state law of deep referral.

This article was Originally Published on CalMatters and was reissued under Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Noderivatives License.