Fact Check: "California law on social media hate speech was largely struck down."
What We Know
California's law regarding social media hate speech, known as AB 587, was signed into law in 2022. This law mandated that social media companies with over $100 million in gross annual revenue disclose their content moderation policies, particularly concerning hate speech and misinformation. The law required these companies to submit a "Content Category Report" to the state attorney general, detailing how they define and moderate various types of speech, including hate speech and extremism (source-2).
Recently, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled that this law is likely unconstitutional. The court granted a preliminary injunction against the enforcement of AB 587, stating that the law's requirements compel non-commercial speech from private companies, which is subject to strict scrutiny under the First Amendment (source-3). The judges found that even a transparency measure that compels such speech does not survive legal scrutiny (source-3).
Analysis
The ruling by the Ninth Circuit effectively blocks significant portions of California's AB 587 law, indicating that the court views the law as an infringement on free speech rights. The court's decision is based on the premise that the law's requirements compel social media platforms to engage in speech that they might not otherwise choose to express, which raises constitutional concerns (source-3).
The reliability of the sources reporting on this legal decision is high. Bloomberg Law and The Verge are reputable outlets known for their legal reporting, and they provide detailed accounts of the court's reasoning and the implications of the ruling (source-3, source-8). The legal analysis presented by the judges is well-founded in First Amendment jurisprudence, which adds to the credibility of the claims regarding the law being struck down.
Conclusion
The claim that "California law on social media hate speech was largely struck down" is True. The Ninth Circuit's ruling has effectively halted the enforcement of key provisions of AB 587, citing constitutional violations related to free speech. This legal decision underscores the challenges that state laws may face when they attempt to regulate speech on platforms protected under the First Amendment.
