> 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

> 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.