California Lawmakers To Make Bad Law Worse By Banning 'False' Political Speech
Mar 20th 2017
]There's something to be said for an informed electorate, although it really shouldn't be elected officials advocating for it. They'd benefit least from people knowing more about sausage and the making thereof. And legislators definitely shouldn't be robbing the First Amendment to pay for better information, as a few California lawmakers are attempting to do.
[Only registered and activated users can see links. ], seems to be a response of sorts to "fake news" and other political detritus of this highly-partisan system. Ostensibly, the bill is aimed at keeping voters from being misled on issues that affect them. The problem is, this bill would allow the government to determine what is or isn't misleading and apply to a citizen's social media posts, blog, etc.
California's existing "political cyberfraud" law (yes, really) already contains wording that forbids cybersquatting, misleading redirects, and otherwise tricking internet users who are seeking information on ballot measures. The existing law is more concerned with acts along the lines of false impersonation and deliberate fraud. The amendment, however, isn't. It adds a couple of new aspects, both making the bad law worse.
First, the law would no longer be limited to "cyberfraud" related to pending ballot measures. It would expand to protect political candidates from being bested by wily web denizens. Where it really goes downhill is this new clause, which criminalizes even more speech.
Section 18320.5 is added to the Elections Code, to read:
It is unlawful for a person to knowingly and willingly make, publish or circulate on an Internet Web site, or cause to be made, published, or circulated in any writing posted on an Internet Web site, a false or deceptive statement designed to influence the vote on either of the following:
(a) Any issue submitted to voters at an election.
(b) Any candidate for election to public office.
With this law, opinions and misinterpretations of ballot measures/candidates' political stances are now illegal acts. The law goes further than simply punishing the writer of false statements. It also aims to punish publishers (which could be read as punishing hosts who would normally be protected by Section 230) and anyone who shares the newly-illegal content. If anything in the original post hints of political leaning, it can be construed as "designed to influence the vote," which would make most heated political discussions a breeding ground for criminal communications.
It would seem the "victims" listed in the proposed amendment aren't really in need of a free speech-abusing law. If California's government doesn't like the tone of online posts about ballot measures, it has plenty of opportunities (and numerous platforms) to set the record straight. Worse, it gives the government the power to shut down speech it doesn't agree with under the pretense preventing voters from being misled.
As for political candidates, they rarely suffer the problem of having too little speech. Bullshit can be countered with more speech, a rhetorical weapon everyone has access to, but political candidates in particular tend to be especially well-equipped in this department.
How the original law managed to survive a constitutional challenge remains a mystery. This addition has zero chance of being found constitutional if it somehow manages to become law.
[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]
The difference between a Socialist and a Communist is that the Socialist doesn't have all the guns yet.
"With this law, opinions and misinterpretations of ballot measures/candidates' political stances are now illegal acts."
It has become an "art form" in Kalifornia in titling Propositions and Measures on our ballots. The title NEVER states what is contained in or is descriptive of what the proposition or measure truly is. It's as if the proposition and measure authors are adhering to a "100% Truth, Mostly" law. When I read these things as initiatives, propositions or measure in our state voters pamphlet, I have become accustomed to a 180 degree assumption of the titles. And I'm usually about 85 to 90 percent validated in my assumptions.
But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.-Thomas Jefferson
Too many voters here are lazy to a fault and never bother to read the propositions, initiatives or measures provided in the informative voters pamphlets that are made available. So, yes, "we" all get the kind of government "they vote for".
It ceased being a joke over 20 years ago. Reality will eventually prevail and will have to be dealt with. Just watch the current developments in San Francisco and Los Angeles. Especially Los Angeles. Nothing but bad news today on the radio about $250 Million budget shortfall due to mismanagement (corruption and theft of "resources"), bonds to develop housing for the "homeless", court settlements, and just the usual irresponsible overspending. Additionally, the mayor of L.A. - "Yoga Pants" Garcetti - is leading a charge by the American Council of Mayors to join forces in re-enforcing "Sanctuary City" agenda's and policies in opposition to our nations laws and President Trump. The Obama hangover and Liberal/DEMOCRAT afflictions continue.
The problem with a law like this isn't exclusively constitutional, ideological, or philosophical...it's meteorological and geological. There's some pretty stormy weather blowing and blustering between the ears of California's legislators. Cranial climate change is baking those little brain cells and rising tides are shorting out those electrical synapses. Cerebral drift has turned their convolutions into unstable fault lines, and normal thought patterns are being badly shaken up.
Are these people freaking nuts or what? What are they smoking? What the hell is in the water?