• by Wendy Davis  @wendyndavis, October 30, 2023

California officials are urging a federal judge to reject a request by X (formerly Twitter) to block a new state law that requires large platforms to disclose their editorial policies.

“California has a substantial interest in requiring social media companies to be transparent about their content-moderation policies and decisions so that consumers can make informed decisions about where they consume and disseminate news and information,” Attorney General Rob Bonta's office writes in papers filed Friday with U.S. District Court Judge William Shubb in the Eastern District of California.

The filing comes in response to a petition by X to block AB 587, which requires social media platforms with revenue of at least $100 million a year to post information about their content moderation policies, and provide semiannual reports to the state attorney general about enforcement. Those reports are supposed to include information about whether and how the companies define and handle material such as “hate speech” and “disinformation.”

X contends the law is unconstitutional, arguing that the statute interferes with private companies' judgments about how to handle speech that's protected by the First Amendment. In general, the First Amendment prohibits the government from attempting to censor lawful speech -- including speech that's racist, sexist, or otherwise objectionable.

The California law “has both the purpose and likely effect of pressuring companies such as X Corp. to remove, demonetize, or deprioritize constitutionally-protected speech that the state deems undesirable or harmful, and places an unjustified and undue burden on social media companies such as X Corp.,” lawyers for the company, including First Amendment expert Floyd Abrams, alleged in a lawsuit filed last month in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California.

The company added that a comparable law for traditional media -- such as a law requiring newspapers to publish their standards for letters to the editor and disclose how many were accepted or rejected due to hate speech or misinformation -- would “undoubtedly violate the First Amendment.”

Bonta's office counters that the law merely mandates disclosure.

“The statute is intended to provide transparency to Californians who consume and disseminate news and information on social media,” state officials write in papers filed Friday. “The statute does not dictate either the substantive content of any platform’s terms of service or the manner in which those terms must be enforced.”

The Attorney General adds that the law “serves the essential state interest of maintaining an informed, enfranchised, and safe populace by providing Californians with information necessary to navigate among the disinformation, threats, and hate speech on social media.”

The law will take effect in January, unless blocked.