A federal appeals court has blocked a California law that would have forced social media companies to reveal how they moderate and police so-called “disinformation.” The court ruled the law likely violates the First Amendment.
Key Facts:
- The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit blocked California’s AB 587 law on free speech grounds.
- The law required social media companies to disclose how they handle hate speech, disinformation, and harassment.
- Judge Kenneth K. Lee, writing for the majority, said the law pressures companies to eliminate speech the state finds problematic.
- The 2-1 ruling called the law “compelled speech” in violation of the First Amendment.
- California Attorney General Rob Bonta defended the law and is reviewing the court’s decision.
The Rest of The Story:
The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals struck down California’s AB 587 law, arguing it violates the First Amendment. The law, passed in 2022, aimed to force social media companies to be transparent about how they police hate speech, disinformation, extremism, and harassment on their platforms.
The law also demanded disclosure of detailed moderation policies and metrics on enforcement, particularly related to controversial content. However, Judge Kenneth K. Lee wrote that AB 587 risks pushing platforms to suppress speech the state dislikes. “It is a transparent attempt to do indirectly what the state cannot do directly,” he stated.
California Attorney General Rob Bonta maintained the law is about transparency, not censorship. However, the court’s ruling described it as an act of “compelled speech,” meaning the state is improperly forcing companies to say things they wouldn’t otherwise say.
Commentary:
This ruling is a major win for free speech in America. At its core, the First Amendment protects not only what you can say, but also your right to decide what not to say. When the government mandates speech—especially on private platforms—it steps far beyond its constitutional bounds.
California’s law dressed itself in the language of transparency, but its real aim was control. By compelling platforms to publicly share their moderation rules and statistics, it opened the door to government influence over what speech gets elevated or suppressed.
Social media is already full of tools for users to report or hide content they find offensive. Platforms have community moderation features, and users can choose what voices to follow or block. If someone falsely presents themselves as an official or spreads dangerous lies, civil lawsuits and fraud laws already provide a pathway for recourse.
But what this law attempted was more sinister. It tried to weaponize the idea of “disinformation” as a pretext for silencing dissenting opinions—usually those unpopular with the ruling class. That’s not how a free society works.
Speech you don’t like is still speech. That includes political opinions, controversial claims, and even blunt or offensive commentary. The answer to bad speech is more speech—not the government’s heavy hand.
California may now look for another way to control online dialogue, but this ruling makes one thing clear: even in the digital age, the Constitution still matters.
The Bottom Line:
A federal appeals court has halted a California law that sought to force social media companies to disclose how they handle disinformation and hate speech. The court ruled it likely violates the First Amendment by compelling speech.
This decision sends a powerful message that government cannot dictate or pressure private platforms to regulate speech in a way that fits the state’s narrative.
