4 ms·

Text of the law: > (3) A statement of whether the current version of the terms of service defines each of the following categories of content, and, if so, the d

by lovecg 3y ago

Text of the law: > (3) A statement of whether the current version of the terms of service defines each of the following categories of content, and, if so, the definitions of those categories, including any subcategories: (A) Hate speech or racism. (B) Extremism or radicalization. (C) Disinformation or misinformation. (D) Harassment. (E) Foreign political interference. I like to imagine what this would look like if the other side was in charge. Say Russia or Florida for that matter. (In case of Russia, one doesn’t have to imagine). > (3) A statement of whether the current version of the terms of service defines each of the following categories of content, and, if so, the definitions of those categories, including any subcategories: (A) LGBT propaganda. (B) Woke ideology. (C) Harassment of religious freedoms. Not so hard to see how complying with this law would be compelled speech, is it now? Whether one says yes or no, you’re implicitly agreeing that these categories are real things. You can’t quite say “I disagree with the law as written” unless you sue, which is what’s happening here.

woodruffw 3y ago
> you’re implicitly agreeing that these categories are real things You have this the wrong way around: these things have legal definitions in both state and federal law, and your "agreement" is not a mandatory condition. Put another way: the state of California is not interested in whether you think hate speech is real. The suit doesn't hinge on that at all; it hinges on whether the government can compel corporate speech that amounts to a disclosure of internal policies. Which it can, for the same reason that the government can compel businesses to do their taxes, file permits, and disclose their political contributions.
- lovecg 3y ago
  This seems to be at least part of the complaint if I’m reading it right: > AB 587 thus mandates X Corp. to speak about sensitive, controversial topics about which it does not wish to speak in the hopes of pressuring X Corp. to limit constitutionally-protected content on its platform that the State apparently finds objectionable or undesirable. This violates the free speech rights granted to X Corp. under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article I, Section 2, of the California Constitution. As for the precedent, > Which it can, for the same reason that the government can compel businesses to do their taxes, file permits, and disclose their political contributions. My understanding is that what can be compelled is pretty limited (e.g. facts in advertising, ingredients, etc.), it’s not a blanket precedent for the state to ask you to produce anything at any time.
  - woodruffw 3y ago
    > AB 587 thus mandates X Corp. to speak about sensitive, controversial topics about which it does not wish to speak in the hopes of pressuring X Corp. to limit constitutionally-protected content on its platform that the State apparently finds objectionable or undesirable. Except that it doesn't: being compelled to produce evidence of your policies (which the law doesn't even require exist) isn't the same thing as being compelled to adopt a position. The law stipulates the former, not the latter. As a framing: when the EPA compels a corporation to produce an environmental impact statement, they're not compelling the corporation to assume a position on the environment or anthropogenic climate change. Being asked to produce internal policies on hate speech, etc. similarly doesn't compel any particular opinion on Twitter's part. > My understanding is that what can be compelled is pretty limited (e.g. facts in advertising, ingredients, etc.), it’s not a blanket precedent for the state to ask you to produce anything at any time. We're talking about factual materials that neither party disputes. Every state in the US has a complex web of transparency laws that compel companies to produce all kinds of information for reasons of public interest; this case is no different. Examples: Salary & pay transparency laws, board and LLC transparency laws, etc.
PeterisP 3y ago
No matter what your opinion is on these categories, "A statement of whether the current version of the terms of service defines each of the following categories of content" is a quite straightforward question - what do your terms of service say? How can you get from that to "implicitly agreeing that these categories are real things"? If your ToS mentions them, then you say yes, if it doesn't mention them, then you say no. Saying "The currently active terms of service document (attached) does not define 'woke ideology' as a separate category of content" is a simple factual statement, and it does not imply anything that you didn't already write in that terms of service agreement; I see nothing wrong with companies being compelled to provide an answer to this - it is relevant factual information about the product they're distributing to people in California; the companies do not have a constitutional right to keep all their internal documents secret, they can be compelled by law to disclose them.

by lovecg 3y ago

woodruffw 3y ago

> you’re implicitly agreeing that these categories are real things You have this the wrong way around: these things have legal definitions in both state and federal law, and your "agreement" is not a mandatory condition. Put another way: the state of California is not interested in whether you think hate speech is real. The suit doesn't hinge on that at all; it hinges on whether the government can compel corporate speech that amounts to a disclosure of internal policies. Which it can, for the same reason that the government can compel businesses to do their taxes, file permits, and disclose their political contributions.

lovecg 3y ago
This seems to be at least part of the complaint if I’m reading it right: > AB 587 thus mandates X Corp. to speak about sensitive, controversial topics about which it does not wish to speak in the hopes of pressuring X Corp. to limit constitutionally-protected content on its platform that the State apparently finds objectionable or undesirable. This violates the free speech rights granted to X Corp. under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article I, Section 2, of the California Constitution. As for the precedent, > Which it can, for the same reason that the government can compel businesses to do their taxes, file permits, and disclose their political contributions. My understanding is that what can be compelled is pretty limited (e.g. facts in advertising, ingredients, etc.), it’s not a blanket precedent for the state to ask you to produce anything at any time.
- woodruffw 3y ago
  > AB 587 thus mandates X Corp. to speak about sensitive, controversial topics about which it does not wish to speak in the hopes of pressuring X Corp. to limit constitutionally-protected content on its platform that the State apparently finds objectionable or undesirable. Except that it doesn't: being compelled to produce evidence of your policies (which the law doesn't even require exist) isn't the same thing as being compelled to adopt a position. The law stipulates the former, not the latter. As a framing: when the EPA compels a corporation to produce an environmental impact statement, they're not compelling the corporation to assume a position on the environment or anthropogenic climate change. Being asked to produce internal policies on hate speech, etc. similarly doesn't compel any particular opinion on Twitter's part. > My understanding is that what can be compelled is pretty limited (e.g. facts in advertising, ingredients, etc.), it’s not a blanket precedent for the state to ask you to produce anything at any time. We're talking about factual materials that neither party disputes. Every state in the US has a complex web of transparency laws that compel companies to produce all kinds of information for reasons of public interest; this case is no different. Examples: Salary & pay transparency laws, board and LLC transparency laws, etc.

PeterisP 3y ago

No matter what your opinion is on these categories, "A statement of whether the current version of the terms of service defines each of the following categories of content" is a quite straightforward question - what do your terms of service say? How can you get from that to "implicitly agreeing that these categories are real things"? If your ToS mentions them, then you say yes, if it doesn't mention them, then you say no. Saying "The currently active terms of service document (attached) does not define 'woke ideology' as a separate category of content" is a simple factual statement, and it does not imply anything that you didn't already write in that terms of service agreement; I see nothing wrong with companies being compelled to provide an answer to this - it is relevant factual information about the product they're distributing to people in California; the companies do not have a constitutional right to keep all their internal documents secret, they can be compelled by law to disclose them.