3 ms·

> It does not dictate anything, just requires companies to report what they’re doing. And what possible interest does the State of California have in gathering

by JackFr 3y ago

> It does not dictate anything, just requires companies to report what they’re doing. And what possible interest does the State of California have in gathering this information? It's close enough to have a chilling effect, and thus the state should have to provide a justification.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
Ar-Curunir 3y ago
LOL, if we left everything to companies, they wouldn't even report the list of ingredients they put in your food. I get that governments can overreach, but not all constraints on private entities are bad.
- JackFr 3y ago
  Yes, there is an obvious public health interest in food labelling. I feel that the compelling interest is not obvious here, and given that the law is not censorship, but lives in the same zip code as censorship, the state should demonstrate a public interest being served that would withstand 1st amendment scrutiny.
atoav 3y ago
One possible interest: You are living in a democracy. Social media has shown that there are strong tendencies to support abolishment of democracy (or how it is also called: fascism). It is expected of a government to resist against any tendencies to abolish democratic rule and peaceful transition of power. That is the single most important task given to a government by us. And soley for that purpose we often allow them to wear a big stick — why? Because outside of democratic rule the law is a arbitrary set of words that can be interpreted by the ruling class in any way they please and that isn't good for the individual, unless you are foolish enough to believe you'd end up in that ruling class (that is 50% of the appeal of fascism). Now as a government would have any right to forcefully resist coup attempts and such, it can (and does) also restrict certain social movements that aim for its abolishment. Usually this happens more on the left than on the right tho, remember the whole communism craze in the US?
- JackFr 3y ago
  If the state made a similar law demanding newspapers provide their editorial policy would that be ok? You know in defense of democracy...
  - atoav 3y ago
    If it is actually in defence of democracy sure. I have lived in nations with a press council before and the press quality was better than in the ones without one. In the end the only true defence are people that want to uphold democracy. If you have them, laws can be phrased as badly as you like, if you don't, then they can be phrased as well as you like, they will "only" buy you time. If your gov. makes bad laws, don't elect them next time. And if your only defence of the freedom of the press is to make coroporations people (but only if it benefits them), those are bad laws.
  - mrguyorama 3y ago
    Yes? I fail to see how giving me, a consumer, information about how the businesses I patronize operate is a bad thing. Transparency about business operations is a good thing for consumers. We force it in the case of a "public" company in the interest of allowing people to make good investment decisions, why don't we allow such reports to benefit the non-investing public as well?
PeterisP 3y ago
Users, many of whom are California, should have the right to truthful information about the product they're using (which, for a media product, includes the moderation policies of that media), and the state has a reasonable interest in ensuring that users get this information.
- nemo44x 3y ago
  No they don’t. There is no case law or constitution or bill that says you have this right. You have no rights to this private property. The state can have all the interests it wants but we have laws including property laws. The state can’t just say it has an interest in something and then take it. This country was literally founded on principals opposing that! This law is illegal and it will be wiped away.
  - fragmede 3y ago
    Eminent domain (for real estate) is highly unpopular but has been tested in the courts as being legal.
  - PeterisP 3y ago
    What "rights to private property"? It's about information, not property, and it is well established that the state can "just state an interest" in truthfulness about products sold to its citizens and compel a manufacturer to list all the ingredients they use in making their product and put that information right on the packaging, even if they'd prefer to keep them secret. Asking a media provider to list their moderation principles seems to me pretty much the same as asking a soap manufacturer to list all the things they put in their soap; in both cases their right to do something in their product does not include a right to hide from the public (or worse, mislead them) about what exactly that product includes.
    - nemo44x 3y ago
      Food isn’t speech.

by JackFr 3y ago

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

Ar-Curunir 3y ago

LOL, if we left everything to companies, they wouldn't even report the list of ingredients they put in your food. I get that governments can overreach, but not all constraints on private entities are bad.

JackFr 3y ago
Yes, there is an obvious public health interest in food labelling. I feel that the compelling interest is not obvious here, and given that the law is not censorship, but lives in the same zip code as censorship, the state should demonstrate a public interest being served that would withstand 1st amendment scrutiny.

atoav 3y ago

One possible interest: You are living in a democracy. Social media has shown that there are strong tendencies to support abolishment of democracy (or how it is also called: fascism). It is expected of a government to resist against any tendencies to abolish democratic rule and peaceful transition of power. That is the single most important task given to a government by us. And soley for that purpose we often allow them to wear a big stick — why? Because outside of democratic rule the law is a arbitrary set of words that can be interpreted by the ruling class in any way they please and that isn't good for the individual, unless you are foolish enough to believe you'd end up in that ruling class (that is 50% of the appeal of fascism). Now as a government would have any right to forcefully resist coup attempts and such, it can (and does) also restrict certain social movements that aim for its abolishment. Usually this happens more on the left than on the right tho, remember the whole communism craze in the US?

JackFr 3y ago
If the state made a similar law demanding newspapers provide their editorial policy would that be ok? You know in defense of democracy...
- atoav 3y ago
  If it is actually in defence of democracy sure. I have lived in nations with a press council before and the press quality was better than in the ones without one. In the end the only true defence are people that want to uphold democracy. If you have them, laws can be phrased as badly as you like, if you don't, then they can be phrased as well as you like, they will "only" buy you time. If your gov. makes bad laws, don't elect them next time. And if your only defence of the freedom of the press is to make coroporations people (but only if it benefits them), those are bad laws.
- mrguyorama 3y ago
  Yes? I fail to see how giving me, a consumer, information about how the businesses I patronize operate is a bad thing. Transparency about business operations is a good thing for consumers. We force it in the case of a "public" company in the interest of allowing people to make good investment decisions, why don't we allow such reports to benefit the non-investing public as well?

PeterisP 3y ago

Users, many of whom are California, should have the right to truthful information about the product they're using (which, for a media product, includes the moderation policies of that media), and the state has a reasonable interest in ensuring that users get this information.

nemo44x 3y ago
No they don’t. There is no case law or constitution or bill that says you have this right. You have no rights to this private property. The state can have all the interests it wants but we have laws including property laws. The state can’t just say it has an interest in something and then take it. This country was literally founded on principals opposing that! This law is illegal and it will be wiped away.
- fragmede 3y ago
  Eminent domain (for real estate) is highly unpopular but has been tested in the courts as being legal.
- PeterisP 3y ago
  What "rights to private property"? It's about information, not property, and it is well established that the state can "just state an interest" in truthfulness about products sold to its citizens and compel a manufacturer to list all the ingredients they use in making their product and put that information right on the packaging, even if they'd prefer to keep them secret. Asking a media provider to list their moderation principles seems to me pretty much the same as asking a soap manufacturer to list all the things they put in their soap; in both cases their right to do something in their product does not include a right to hide from the public (or worse, mislead them) about what exactly that product includes.
  - nemo44x 3y ago
    Food isn’t speech.