Newsom’s Neurotic Free Speech Suppression Law

Letter to Romans: Newsom’s “Privacy for immigration providers” purports to just expand California’s “Safe at Home” law. But it’s civil liability for & criminalization of online journalism based on some INTENT to cause harm leaves it vulnerable to constitutional attack…

To be sure, every state has an interest in protecting its agents & public service providers’ safety & privacy. That’s why California’s AB 2624’s core name & address confidentiality provisions are probably constitutional. But its possible imposing civil & criminal liability for the publication of truthful information legally obtained would run up against the Supreme Courts’ historical protection of the First Amendment. Clearly, the Supremes have been unkind to plaintiffs attempting to turn truthful postings into a crime just because it’s embarrassing to or doesn’t support their political agenda. Think Florida Star v B.J.F. & Smith v Daily Mail. Nor have the Justices permitted governments to use its own regulatory power to censor political speech it doesn’t like. So why would they recognize California’s back door creation of a new “protected class” via AB 2624? (See NRA v. Vullo).

And yet, perhaps AB 2624 is most attackable because of its weird dualistic approach to imposing liability in civil & criminal cases it envisions. On the civil side, the statute doesn’t require “protected persons” to prove that posted info or image caused an actual economic loss while its “minimum” of 4K can be multiplied times 3. And yet, it triggers liability upon a showing of INTENT to incite or threaten violence or great bodily harm. PRAY TELL, especially in cases accusing an online investigative journalist, exactly how do you (dis)prove INTENT to cause such HARM to another when the published content is typically debatable let alone truthful? On the criminal side, the statute calls for a felony offense punishable with a $50,000 fine & imprisonment IF THE INTENT was to cause or incite bodily harm AND IT DOES. Ok. “Intent” is written all over the Rule of Law. But with these punishing Machiavellian rules of AB 2624, how can Free Speech not be SUPPRESSED? Answer THAT for a majority of the Justices & maybe California’s new law passes Constitutional muster in toto.

Davd Soul