3 ms·

> 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 fe

> 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.

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.