‘FAKE NEWS BAN’ California Attacks the First Amendment

thegatewaypundit ^ | Carter

[davikkm]

A bill was introduced back on February 17 by the California State Assembly, which attempts to ban “fake news” – a difficult term to define. Wednesday, March 29, saw the bill filed to the Assembly’s Committee on Privacy and Consumer Affairs.

The bill, which would ultimately amend the California Political Cyberfraud Abatement Act, would make it illegal to spread so-called “false or deceptive” information.

The following is a portion of the proposed amendment as it stands:

It is unlawful for a person to knowingly and willingly make, publish or circulate on an Internet Web site, or cause to be made, published, or circulated in any writing posted on an Internet Web site, a false or deceptive statement designed to influence the vote on either of the following:

(a) Any issue submitted to voters at an election.

(b) Any candidate for election to public office.

As previously stated, the term “fake news” is hard to define and given this, the text that makes up the amendment is equally ambiguous and does not in explicit language define what “false or deceptive” information, or statements, are, which would allow for subjective interpretations of the law to be used to discredit or devalue narratives that are counter intuitive to the individual/entity attempting to use the law for some sort of claim.

[davikkm]

I can very well decide for MYSELF what to believe and what not to believe.

This effort by the Left treats me like an infant.

[vette6387]

“a) Any issue submitted to voters at an election.

(b) Any candidate for election to public office.”

This is hilarious! How do these scum suckers think they will continue to get re-eiected!

[Steely Tom]

Why not "California Declares War On The Constitution."

That would be more in keeping with the current fashion in headline writing.

[ronnie raygun]

“false or deceptive” information, aimed at anything coming from Trump

[The_Media_never_lie]

Leftism is a form of infantilism, after all.

[LostPassword]

CNN, ABC, CBS, and NBC are already to challenge the law. Soros and the DNC will pay their lawyers.

[meyer]

I guess that dissent is no longer patriotic, as it was once claimed to be by none other than Hitlery Clinton herself.

[Nifster]

It didn’t pass

[Vaduz]

Why would a fake state ban fake news it’s all in the same pail of squat.

[nuke_road_warrior]

Interestingly, this only applies to the internet, not to newspapers, radio, TV, magazines, etc. So the politicians can continue to lie, as long as it isn't posted on line?

However, considering the open sewer of lies comping from Sacramento, and the fact that politicians can't help themselves from posting on the book of face, will they all be charged under this? (Of course not, but I can dream can't I?)

[bert]

In California, it’s 1984 all over again

[Pearls Before Swine]

As is the case for all censor-ship activities, the question is “Who decides?” If I were on the committee, CNN, the NYT, and much of the rest of the MSM would lose much of their content. But, someone like myself wouldn’t be in charge. The “Truth Committee” would undoubtedly be a politically appointed group.

[stylin19a]

Shirley there must be exemptions for satire...

[McGavin999]

And just who would be in charge of determining what is fake? If they would educate people they wouldn’t fall for fake news.

[spintreebob]

It shall be illegal to distribute, write or think any story of fiction, pretend or wishful thinking.

It shall be illegal to distribute, write or think any figure of speech including metaphor, similie and sarcasm.

[nathanbedford]

The purpose of the First Amendment, especially respecting political speech, is to create a culture in which truth can be identified because it can be expressed. But the truth cannot be identified until competing expressions are heard. That is why the Supreme Court has ruled that prior restraint of speech should be subject to the strictest scrutiny.

Thus, the purpose of the First Amendment can only be achieved if the government tolerates speech it believes to be false, slanderous, libelous (if free of malice) or just plain stupid. In other words, we have to tolerate a lot of bad speech to hear the good speech. That is why the Supreme Court in New York Times vs. Sullivan created such a high bar to prove slander or libel against a public person.

That high bar might create a culture which is raucous, unpleasant, often erroneous, but free.

Those who are zot happy on these threads at Free Republic who spend their days riding the cyber range looking to do God's will because they know what the truth is, I call them zot vigilantes, ought to consider that they might just have confused good speech for bad speech and bad speech for good speech. How will we know until it is expressed?

We are not operating, of course, under the same strictures which the Constitution places against the government. This is a private enterprise and its owner can unquestionably do as he pleases about restricting speech he disapproves of. But the principle remains true, if you want to know what is good you have to tolerate the bad in the private as well as in the public sphere.

Yes, decorum and good order have to be maintained because a forum such as this cannot leave itself naked to trolls and cyber saboteurs. I actually believe that to the degree the administrative moderators fail to enforce standards of decency and decorum the more they will be unfortunately forced to zot for political opinions. I think we witnessed that in the last primary season. But there is a huge difference between earnest debate, cyber bullying and trolls which I think the moderators can and should distinguish.

I believe that we conservatives have a true understanding of how the world should work and I also firmly believe that we should not be afraid to defend our understanding in a forum devoted to political discussion, especially conservative political discussion, because we will be outclassed or out argued. Ultimately, truth will out and conservatism is right. We need not fear, conservatism does not need to be sheltered and protected by well-meaning conservatives, it is stronger than we are because it is true. When we shield it we leave it untempered, unprepared for battle, we become a caricature of ourselves because we have no self-correcting mechanism at our disposal.

[VRW Conspirator]

I can see it now. CMI. California Ministry of Information. Run by democrat appointees. Deciding what is fake news and what is not. Fining conservatives left and right (or is that left and lefter). Regressives...harken back to 1984 every chance they get.

[alloysteel]

How would anyone know, at the onset, if news were fake or real? And once that had been determined (usually way after the time the “news” was first reported), can intent to distribute “fake news” be honestly attributed?

This is mightily like stated-ordered pre-censorship of news. Some very important information, because it first appeared to be “fake”, may never gain the consciousness of the public, though those close to the source are well aware of its veracity, but afraid to distribute what they know because of draconian laws preventing transparency.

George Orwell would be so proud of his prescience.

[sima_yi]

...the term “fake news” is hard to define...

"Fake News" would be defined as

1.) Anything unfavorable to a Democrat

2.) Anything favorable to a Republican