Call all state Senators in Cali and put them on notice that a free speech grab will not be tolerated.
Sponsor Richard Pan is a well known adversary in the vaccine safety movement and is bankrolled by BIG PHARMA. This man has not conscience.
PIZZAGATE CONNECTION: This could shut down our ability to discuss and link Pizzagate research.
"It Begins: California Senator Introduces Bill to Kill Free Speech, Requires State-Sanctioned Fact Checkers to Approve Online Content"
The bill is titled “SB1424 Internet: social media: false information: strategic plan.”
It targets social media based in California. But as you read the bill, you see it appears to define social media as any Internet blog, website, or communication.
SB1424 is brief. Read it
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2018/04/it-begins-california-senator-introduces-bill-to-kill-free-speech-requires-state-sanctioned-fact-checkers-to-approve-online-content/
view the rest of the comments →
Are_we_sure ago
Serious question. How does this actually kill free speech or target VOAT? What's the mechanism? There's no penalties mentioned in the text of the bill. Where's the other part of this?
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=201720180SB1424
So let's say this thing passes and voat.co completely ignores it, what happens?
septimasexta ago
Pan's bill states: "This bill would require any person who operates a social media, as defined, Internet Web site with a physical presence in California to develop a strategic plan to verify news stories shared on its Web site."
Answer: Social media functions as "the press." The Constitution (government) uniquely guarantees its freedom from government control/interference. Significantly, the Constitution DOES NOT guarantee to the CONSUMER OF THE PRESS anything, especially whether or not what is printed is true, false, insulting, harmful, etc. The CITIZEN is empowered to respond to the press as they see fit. It is up to them to determine the truth of a matter. The Constitution does provide for legal recompense if personal harm is proved in a court of law. If an article of the press can be proven to have caused physical harm or financial loss, then the author could be liable to compensate the victim. It's that simple. Pan's Bill falsely assumes that the State of California has power to interfere with the CONSUMER of the press; ie "the state of California will tell you if something on social media is true or false and they can prevent you from reading something they deem to be false." WHO WILL PAY FOR THE LIVE-IN FACT CHECKERS? This would be an unconstitutional TAX.
Are_we__sure ago
LIVE IN FACT CHECKERS? What are you talking about?
Also, I see that the law says, you should have strategic plan. But what happens if you do not? There's no penalties spelled out here. So what happens?
septimasexta ago
Your question is irrelevant. The premise of the law USURPTS THE Constitutional power delegated to the citizen CONSUMER OF THE PRESS. I am calling for Senator Pan to be EXPELLED from the Senate for attempting to UNDERMINE the FIRST AMENDMENT. This would have far-reaching negative effects on the citizens! The entire population would be harmed, FAR WORSE than what happened to the staffers of FORMER Senator Mendoza! https://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/California-Sen-Tony-Mendoza-resigns-under-threat-12633122.php
BTW, a Constitutional attorney has confirmed my legal analysis.
Are_we__sure ago
Jesus, hysterical much? You are running down the road of imagined far-reaching effects and you still haven't answered the absolutely relevant question of what actually happens if VOAT or any other website ignored this law and just went about their business.
So do we know what happens?
Not all speech had first ammendment protection. Slander and defmation are not protected speech. Laws against false advertising are completely legal.
You say an attorney agrees with you. OK. Have a link to his reasoning? Otherwise it's just an appeal to authority.
septimasexta ago
Pan's bill states: "This bill would require any person who operates a social media, as defined, Internet Web site with a physical presence in California to develop a strategic plan to verify news stories shared on its Web site."
Answer: Social media functions as "the press." The Constitution (government) uniquely guarantees its freedom from government control/interference. Significantly, the Constitution DOES NOT guarantee to the CONSUMER OF THE PRESS anything, especially whether or not what is printed is true, false, insulting, harmful, etc. The CITIZEN is empowered to respond to the press as they see fit. It is up to them to determine the truth of a matter. The Constitution does provide for legal recompense if personal harm is proved in a court of law. If an article of the press can be proven to have caused physical harm or financial loss, then the author could be liable to compensate the victim. It's that simple. Pan's Bill falsely assumes that the State of California has power to interfere with the CONSUMER of the press; ie "the state of California will tell you if something on social media is true or false and they can prevent you from reading something they deem to be false." A Cali senator's aid is a Constitutional attorney. He confirmed and agreed with what I said in a one-on-one conversation. It appears that many senators are against this bill.
septimasexta ago
"Jesus, hysterical much?" My name is not "Jesus". Nice try.
septimasexta ago
If you try to dox me again, I'll report you to PUTT.