Posted on 10/06/2025 6:44:28 AM PDT by MtnClimber
SB-771 threatens to turn digital platforms into ideological enforcers, punishing those who hold traditional, faith-based viewpoints.
California lawmakers are once again leading the charge — not toward progress, but toward repression. Their latest move, Senate Bill 771 (SB-771), is being packaged as a bold stand against “hate” on social media. In reality, it’s a direct assault on the free expression and constitutionally protected speech of ministries, minority groups, and faith-based organizations.
The bill would force Big Tech to remove content that could be interpreted as “harassment” or “intimidation” based on race, gender identity, sexual orientation, and more — or face financially devastating lawsuits.
If Gov. Gavin Newsom signs this bill into law as expected, it will become one of the most dangerous speech-restricting laws in the country. Cloaked in the language of civil rights, SB-771 is built to punish dissent from progressive orthodoxy.
The target is anyone who dares to speak publicly about values or perspectives that conflict with the state’s ever-expanding list of protected identities. In practice, this means community groups sharing discussions on traditional family structures, cultural views on gender roles, or advocacy for certain social issues may find themselves silenced — not by law enforcement, but by tech giants eager to avoid legal risk.
The bills says:
California law prohibits all persons and entities, including corporations, from engaging in, aiding, abetting, or conspiring to commit acts of violence, intimidation, or coercion based on race, religion, gender, sexual orientation, immigration status, or other protected characteristics.
3273.73. (a) A social media platform that violates Section 51.7, 51.9, 52, or 52.1 through its algorithms that relay content to users or aids, abets, acts in concert, or conspires in a violation of any of those sections, or is a joint tortfeasor in a violation of any of those sections, shall, in addition to any other remedy, be liable to a prevailing plaintiff for a civil penalty for each violation sufficient to deter future violations but not to exceed the following:
(1) For an intentional, knowing, or willful violation, a civil penalty of up to one million dollars
(2) For a reckless violation, a civil penalty of up to five hundred thousand dollars.
This language may appear just, but its sweeping terms — “intimidation,” “coercion,” even “aiding” — are dangerously vague. In the hands of ideologically motivated actors, they can be weaponized to silence constitutionally protected discourse under the guise of enforcing civil rights.
That’s the chilling brilliance of SB-771: it outsources censorship to the private sector under threat of state-enforced financial ruin. The law doesn’t need to directly ban speech — it just makes the cost of hosting it too high for Big Tech to tolerate. This will especially impact small ministries, minority-led organizations, and faith-based nonprofits with limited legal or technical resources. For them, one flagged post — perhaps a cultural reference taken out of context — could mean being shadow-banned or deplatformed altogether.
Throttling Free Speech
This isn’t a theoretical concern. Social media algorithms have already throttled voices from minority communities and advocacy groups for expressing views that, not long ago, were mainstream. Organizations defending certain social norms, supporting traditional values, or advocating for personal freedoms are increasingly finding their content buried — or outright deleted. SB-771 would institutionalize this trend and turn social media companies into tools of government-endorsed censorship.
Of course, harassment and threats should not be tolerated anywhere, online or offline. But that’s not what this bill is really about. SB-771 uses vague, subjective language to redefine “intimidation” so broadly that a community leader discussing cultural traditions or an organization sharing personal stories about lifestyle changes could fall under its scope. Activists need only claim they felt “threatened” to trigger a legal nightmare — and the platforms will act first and ask questions never..........SNIP
Would ANTIFA antics would be found to violate this statute? I am guessing the courts would operate under the current two-tier system and ANTIFA would be permitted to do as they please.
Musk will move “X” out of CA so fast your head will spin.
islam is a totalitarian death cult founded by a child rapist.
And trannies are wack.
Every perversion under the sun will get a pass. Anybody promoting traditional monogamous marriage and families or speaking ill of rampant perversions will get shut down.
How can SCOTUS not tackle this?
Your guess would be correct.
I've read otherwise.
And I don't use fascist lightly, I don't mean 'meanies I don't like'. I mean the political ideology which is basically communist BUT it allows private ownership of property and, crucially, industry but only under complete government control. For examples of modern fascist states - see China. They still say they are communist (CCP) but really they have private property so that's a lie. They are fasist, so is California, or it aspires to be.
And trannies are wack.
That's two strikes against you! You must repent on both counts. Repeat after me: "Islam is right about trannies and homosexuals."
Californians are a lost cause and hopeless, it would be better a huge 8+ quake hit there to shake some sense into them, might be the only thing that wakes them up.
This is just feel good tactics by the California Legislature. Any attempt to enforce it will be struck down very quickly. There have been numerous court decisions that have shown the First Amendment to be absolute. The state pornography laws were killed decades ago, as were Red Scare era attempts to suppress Communist newspapers and broadcasts.
Try checking the prices of flights to Caracas and Havana on say Air Canada and Kayak. You can’t.
Flights to the UK could be cut off in the same way.
Trump tariffs that a judge might strike down could be replaced by secondary sanctions on the UK.
We need to fight for free speech in the UK.
UK insanity tends to head west across The Pond.
Members of the California legislature should bear in mind that a judge could enforce Section 3 of Amendment XIV.
“islam is right about trannies and homosexuals.”
“islam is right about trannies and homosexuals.”
“islam is right about trannies and homosexuals.”
Do I also have to buy an Indulgence and / or prostrate myself to them?
Could be painful…
Good post. Agree with you 100%.
Of course not. Like “common sense gun laws” which means they keep theirs but take ours, it would be selectively enforced.
That’s how dem law works. Du-ohh!
“When fascism comes, it will come in the name of anti-fascism.”
Huey Long
Since this website is based in the golden state one wonders how long it would last under this new law
Blatant first amendment violation.
This will not stand the scrutiny of the Federal courts...if it even gets that far.
Already done.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.