How to Defang California's Content Moderation Law

WASHINGTON - Sept. 9, 2024 - PRLog -- A law in California - (AB 587 (https://legiscan.com/CA/text/AB587/id/2599787)) - requires large social media companies to disclose their content moderation and hate speech policies, and submit a "semiannual report detailing their TOS and content-moderation practices including . ., how the terms of service define and address (a) hate speech or racism; (b) extremism or radicalization; (c) disinformation or misinformation; (d) harassment; and (e) foreign political interference, as well as statistics on content that was flagged by the social media company as belonging to any of the categories."

Media companies may comply in ways which protect freedom of speech if they provide no useful information and impose no burdens, suggests public interest law professor John Banzhaf.

For example, a company would technically be in full compliance with the precise terms of the statute if it simply posted and reported little more than something such as the following.

TERMS OF SERVICE AND HATE SPEECH POLICIES - "We use only our best judgment to remove posts which we in our own best sole and exclusive judgment believe should be removed. There are no criteria to disclose or report.  Anything which we in our own best sole and exclusive judgment remove or otherwise take action with regard to may or may not include what some may label 'hate speech.'  But since we do not use that term, we have no definition of it.  Moreover, as the Washington Post and many others have reminded us,
Supreme Court Unanimously Reaffirms: There is no 'Hate Speech' Exception to the First Amendment (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/...)

DEFINITIONS OF TERMS - We do not define or use terms such as (a) hate speech or racism; (b) extremism or radicalization; (c) disinformation or misinformation; (d) harassment; and/or (e) foreign political interference.  Since we do not use such terms and have not defined them, we cannot post any definitions, and there are no statistics on our site with regard to content in any such categories which may or may not have been removed and/or that which otherwise we may have taken action regarding.

POTENTIAL ACTIONS THAT MAY BE TAKEN WITH RESPECT TO FLAGGED CONTENT (TERMS OF SERVICE (TOS) POSTING) - Since the terms "flagged" or "flag" are not defined by the statute, and we do not utilize such terms, we cannot directly respond to this disclosure requirement.  However, if there is content which we believe in our best sole and exclusive judgment should be removed, we simply remove it.

For suggestions as to how companies may likewise respond to and comply with New York state's similar probably unconstitutional statute, see Professor Banzhaf's legal analysis in
New York's New Law Regulates Blogs with 'Hate Postings' (https://vermontdailychronicle.com/new-yorks-new-law-regul...)

http://banzhaf.net/   jbanzhaf3ATgmail.com   @profbanzhaf