moonbattery logo

Mar 29 2017

Draconian Internet Censorship Bill Proposed in California

If totalitarianism comes to America, it will hit the shore in California. It is already visible on the horizon. The California Political Cyberfraud Abatement Act is an actual bill, proposed by Assemblymember Ed Chau:

The bill would … make it unlawful for a person to knowingly and willingly make, publish or circulate on a Web site, or cause to be made, published, or circulated in any writing posted on a Web site, a false or deceptive statement designed to influence the vote on any issue submitted to voters at an election or on any candidate for election to public office.

In other words, most any political speech regarded by someone as “wrong” could potentially be proclaimed criminal. Authorities could prosecute at their discretion.

Attacks on fundamental liberties are always justified by pretexts. Here the supposed need to eradicate “fake news” serves that purpose. In actual practice, this term usually refers to news that has not been reported with the liberal slant preferred by the powers that be.

As the Electronic Frontier Foundation observes, the bill stinks:

This bill will fuel a chaotic free-for-all of mudslinging with candidates and others being accused of crimes at the slightest hint of hyberbole, exaggeration, poetic license, or common error. While those accusations may not ultimately hold up, politically motivated prosecutions—or the threat of such—may harm democracy more than if the issue had just been left alone. Furthermore, A.B. 1104 makes no exception for satire and parody, leaving The Onion and Saturday Night Live open to accusations of illegal content. Nor does it exempt news organizations who quote deceptive statements made by politicians in their online reporting—even if their reporting is meant to debunk those claims. And what of everyday citizens who are duped by misleading materials: if 1,000 Californians retweet an incorrect statement by a presidential candidate, have they all broken the law?

A more carefully written bill would be even more dangerous, because it would stand a better chance of passing — although no bill that criminalizes political speech could be squared with the First Amendment.

Internet Censorship

On a tip from J.




20 Responses to “Draconian Internet Censorship Bill Proposed in California”

  1. grayjohn says:

    It is past time to toss California out of the union, maybe the whole West Coast.
    Their diseased minds are a danger to the rest of us.

  2. Mr. Freemarket says:

    “The bill would … make it unlawful for a person to knowingly and willingly make, publish or circulate on a Web site, or cause to be made, published, or circulated in any writing posted on a Web site, a false or deceptive statement designed to influence the vote on any issue submitted to voters at an election or on any candidate for election to public office.”

    “If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor. If you like your health care insurance, you can keep your health care insurance. And it will save the average family $2500 per year.”

  3. Mr. Freemarket says:

    BTW….if someone promises that the earth is warming up due to man’s actions, and then it doesn’t warm up, where does he go to report the guy spreading the false rumor?

  4. Mr. Freemarket says:

    Would statements on the cost of running that high speed train through California also be covered by this law?

    And would politicians visiting California from other places also be subject to this law?

  5. Mr. Freemarket says:

    Of course the web version of the LA Times would be in grave danger…especially if they carried news stories from the AP, NY Times, or WaPo.

  6. Anonymous says:

    Commies have no sense of humor or tolerance for dissent.

  7. grayjohn says:

    Excellent,

  8. Sufferfortribe says:

    Hmmm…..couldn’t you just start every post with “I don’t know if this is true, but I heard”?

  9. Sufferfortribe says:

    Can that wait until I escape?

  10. THOUGHTCRIMINAL2084 says:

    NY has proposed a similarly chilling law.

    New York Assemblyman Unveils Bill To Suppress Non-Government-Approved Free Speech

    by Tyler Durden

    Mar 16, 2017 5:55 PM

    In a bill aimed at securing a “right to be forgotten,” introduced by Assemblyman David I. Weprin and (as Senate Bill 4561 by state Sen. Tony Avella), liberal New York politicians would require people to remove ‘inaccurate,’ ‘irrelevant,’ ‘inadequate’ or ‘excessive’ statements about others… Within 30 days of a ”request from an individual,”“all search engines and online speakers] shall remove … content about such individual, and links or indexes to any of the same, that is ‘inaccurate’, ‘irrelevant’, ‘inadequate’ or ‘excessive,’ ”

    “and without replacing such removed … content with any disclaimer [or] takedown notice.”

    “ ‘[I]naccurate’, ‘irrelevant’, ‘inadequate’, or ‘excessive’ shall mean content,”

    o “which after a significant lapse in time from its first publication,”

    o “is no longer material to current public debate or discourse,”

    o “especially when considered in light of the financial, reputational and/or demonstrable other harm that the information … is causing to the requester’s professional, financial, reputational or other interest,”

    o “with the exception of content related to convicted felonies, legal matters relating to violence, or a matter that is of significant current public interest, and as to which the requester’s role with regard to the matter is central and substantial.”

    Failure to comply would make the search engines or speakers liable for, at least, statutory damages of $250/day plus attorney fees.

    As The Washington Post’s Eugene Volokh rages, under this bill, newspapers, scholarly works, copies of books on Google Books and Amazon, online encyclopedias (Wikipedia and others) — all would have to be censored whenever a judge and jury found (or the author expected them to find) that the speech was “no longer material to current public debate or discourse” (except when it was “related to convicted felonies” or “legal matters relating to violence” in which the subject played a “central and substantial” role).

    And of course the bill contains no exception even for material of genuine historical interest; after all, such speech would have to be removed if it was “no longer material to current public debate.” Nor is there an exception for autobiographic material, whether in a book, on a blog or anywhere else. Nor is there an exception for political figures, prominent businesspeople and others.

    But the deeper problem with the bill is simply that it aims to censor what people say, under a broad, vague test based on what the government thinks the public should or shouldn’t be discussing. It is clearly unconstitutional under current First Amendment law, and I hope First Amendment law will stay that way (no matter what rules other countries might have adopted).

    Remember: There is no “right to be forgotten” in the abstract; no law can ensure that, and no law can be limited to that. Instead, the “right” this aims to protect is the power to suppress speech — the power to force people (on pain of financial ruin) to stop talking about other people, when some government body decides that they should stop.

  11. THOUGHTCRIMINAL2084 says:

    Bolsheviks want us all dead and are working feverishly to accomplish just that. WAKE THE F UP ALREADY.

  12. THOUGHTCRIMINAL2084 says:

    There really isn’t a union anymore. The coasts are hostile to Americans. Enough “new” residents have been planted to foment in the rest of the former America, that no where will be safe in a very short time.

  13. Dan Northrup says:

    Login to your VPN in Switzerland and post from there. The internet falls into no jurisdiction. It is impossible to censor, just ask china how great the great firewall is working.

  14. DM says:

    So guess those in Ca will be limited to posting pics of puppies and kitties.

  15. Torcer says:

    “Inside Every Progressive Is A Totalitarian Screaming to Get Out.”

    So much for those people being “Liberal”.

  16. Carriedrichardson says:

    Google is paying 97$ per hour! Work for few hours & have longer with friends and family! !dg171c:
    On tuesday I got a great new Land Rover Range Rover from having earned $8752 this last four weeks.. Its the most-financialy rewarding I’ve had.. It sounds unbelievable but you wont forgive yourself if you don’t check it
    !dg171c:
    ➽➽
    ➽➽;➽➽ http://GoogleFinancialCashJobs481ShopAppGetPaid$97/Hour ★★★✫★★★✫★★★✫★★★✫★★★✫★★★✫★★★✫★★★✫★★★✫★★★✫★★★✫★★★✫★★★✫::::::!dg171c:….,…….

  17. Gretchen says:

    Oh, my gosh. That is terrible!

  18. […] Draconian Internet Censorship Bill Proposed in California If totalitarianism comes to America, it will hit the shore in California. It is already visible on the horizon. The California Political Cyberfraud Abatement Act is an actual bill, proposed by Assemblymember Ed Chau […]

  19. AlecJ says:

    These states know that as they collapse the only method they have to quash truth will be censorship. The left can bully, and silence but it cannot change the laws of economics. Their demise is sure…..

Alibi3col theme by Themocracy