Sukses Main Mahjong Ways Best808 Pahami Scatter dan Kombinasinya Mahjong Ways Best808 Simbol Scatter Meningkatkan Peluang Menang Kesalahan Umum Pemain Mahjong Ways di Best808 Auto Jackpot Strategi Terbaik Fitur Scatter Mahjong Ways Best808 Mahjong Ways Best808 Panduan Scatter Wild Hasil Maksimal Pola Mahjong Ways Best808 Gacor Scatter Menang Bongkar Misteri Mahjong Ways Best808 Kunci Kemenanganmu Mau Cuan Maksimal di Mahjong Ways Best808 Trik Menggunakan Scatter Agar Lebih Untung Main Mahjong Ways di Best808 Kenali Pola Scatter Free Spin Gandakan Kemenanganmu Rahasia Scatter Mahjong Ways Best808 Strategi Jitu Menang Jackpot Besar Misteri Scatter Mahjong Ways Tol777 Kunci Jackpot Besar Bongkar Rahasia Mahjong Ways Tol777 Fitur Scatter Pola Menang Mahjong Ways Tol777 Simbol Scatter Kemenangan Besar Main Mahjong Ways di Tol777 Cara Memanfaatkan Scatter Strategi Mahjong Ways Tol777 Rahasia Scatter Trik Menang Jackpot Analisis Pola Permainan Mahjong Ways Keunggulan Mahjong Ways Tol777 vs Tradisional Kombinasi Simbol Tertinggi Mahjong Ways Langkah Meningkatkan Keahlian Mahjong Ways Mahjong Ways Tol777 Berbeda dari Permainan Mengapa Mahjong Ways Tol777 Diminati Dunia Optimalkan Putaran Mahjong Ways Tol777 Sejarah Mahjong Ways Tol777 dan Keunikan Simbol Mahjong Ways Tol777 dan Pemanfaatannya Strategi Lanjutan Mahjong Ways Tol777 Live RTP Dan Kasino Online Live RTP Dan Kasino Online Live RTP Dan Kasino Online Live RTP Dan Kasino Online Live RTP Dan Kasino Online Live RTP Dan Kasino Online Live RTP Dan Kasino Online Live RTP Dan Kasino Online Live RTP Dan Kasino Online Live RTP Dan Kasino Online Cara Cepat Kuasai Mahjong Ways Tol777 Mengapa Mahjong Ways Tol777 Populer Mitos & Fakta Mahjong Ways Tol777 Strategi Pemula vs Pro Mahjong Ways Teknik Profesional Mahjong Ways Tol777 Mahjong Ways Tol777: Keberuntungan atau Skill? Mahjong Ways Tol777: Tradisi dan Inovasi Panduan Mahjong Ways Tol777 untuk Pemula Rahasia Menang Mahjong Ways Tol777 Tips Efektif Main Mahjong Ways Tol777

Murdering The First Amendment, California Style

Judicial,Gavel,And,Ai,Symbol.,Jurisprudence,And,Ban,Artificial,Intelligence

The powers in Sacramento, in the cities and counties along the coast, and in the universities have become the censors their parents and grandparents warned them about.

Free speech, guaranteed by both the U.S. and California constitutions, has been whipsawed back and forth in California like a regrettable stock purchase for more than a month.

The wild ride began when the Legislature passed Assembly Bill 2839, which bans political parody, by wide margins in both chambers (63-8 in the Assembly, 32-6 in the Senate). Next, Gov. Gavin Newsom signed the bill on Sept. 17.

“Safeguarding the integrity of elections is essential to democracy, and it’s critical that we ensure AI is not deployed to undermine the public’s trust through disinformation – especially in today’s fraught political climate,” Newsom said in a signing statement. “These measures will help to combat the harmful use of deepfakes in political ads and other content.”

But one man’s deepfake is another man’s free speech. So Christopher Kohls, “(aka ‘Mr. Reagan’) … an individual who creates digital content about political figures,” sued Attorney General Rob Bonta and Secretary of State Shirley Weber. He contends, says senior U.S. District Judge John A. Mendez, “that AB 2839 violates the First and Fourteenth Amendments.” Kohls further “argues that the statute infringes on his right to free speech and is unconstitutionally vague.”

Mendez agreed. On Oct. 2, he ruled:

“​​Defendants Rob Bonta and Shirley N. Weber and their agents, employees, public servants, officers and persons acting in concert with them are HEREBY ENJOINED from enforcing AB 2839 except for the audio only severed portion of the statute.”

The law “does not pass constitutional scrutiny,” according to the judge, and “lacks the narrow tailoring and least restrictive alternative that a content-based law requires under strict scrutiny.”

The Alliance Defending Freedom, which represents satire site The Babylon Bee and California attorney and political blogger Kelly Chang Rickert, has also taken the state to court.

“​​My personal blog and social media accounts don’t need Newsom’s stamp of approval,” says Rickert. “This attempt to silence humor and other content that appeals to me and my audience is a blatant use of power to silence dissent.”

The next move is Sacramento’s, and it’s likely to be an appeal. California’s political ruling class doesn’t like to have its power over others challenged.

Of course, this isn’t Sacramento’s initial foray into censoring speech it doesn’t like.

  • The Department of Motor Vehicles at one time placed limits on personalized license plates. Californians who wanted plates the DMV considered “offensive to good taste and decency” were denied their First Amendment right. A federal judge ruled the policy was unconstitutional.
  • Two years ago, Sacramento approved a bill that, in part, required social media companies to report to Bonta’s office how their terms of service defined hate speech or racism; extremism or radicalization; disinformation or misinformation; harassment; and foreign political interference. X, formerly Twitter, sued, and the Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals reversed a lower court’s refusal to issue a preliminary injunction.
  • Also in 2022, the Legislature passed and Newsom signed the Age-Appropriate Design Code Act, which under one of its mandates “deputizes covered businesses into serving as censors for the state,” says the Ninth Circuit – which two months ago affirmed a lower court’s preliminary injunction that blocked enforcement of the laws “centerpiece.”
  • During the pandemic, lawmakers passed a bill declaring that “it shall constitute unprofessional conduct for a physician and surgeon to disseminate misinformation or disinformation related to COVID-19, including false or misleading information regarding the nature and risks of the virus, its prevention and treatment; and the development, safety, and effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines.” In other words, physicians couldn’t discuss treatments that the government didn’t approve of. If they did, they risked having their license to practice revoked. The law stirred outrage and drew the attention of First Amendment lawyers. It was eventually repealed a year ago.

California has come a long way since it gave birth to the free-speech movement of the 1960s, but it wasn’t along a straight line. Instead, there was a U-turn. The powers in Sacramento, in the cities and counties along the coast, and in the universities have become the censors their parents and grandparents warned them about.

Kerry Jackson is the William Clement Fellow in California Reform at the Pacific Research Institute.

Nothing contained in this blog is to be construed as necessarily reflecting the views of the Pacific Research Institute or as an attempt to thwart or aid the passage of any legislation.

Scroll to Top