A win for The Bee: State’s attempt to censor satire ruled to be unconstitutional

Posted on by Constitutional Nobody

California’s deliberate scheme to censor satire, and prevent its politicians and others from being the butt of online jokes, has failed.

A federal district court has ruled that two California laws censoring online political speech are unconstitutional.

“Making fun of politicians and criticizing the government is a core First Amendment right. That includes using new technology to create parody campaign ads or satirical memes,” explained lawyer Johannes Widmalm-Delphonse of the ADF.

“The court was right to rein in California’s blatant censorship. We can’t trust the government to decide what is true in our online political debates,” the lawyer said.

The ADF is working on the case involving the Babylon Bee and others. There are two lawsuits involved, Babylon Bee v. Bonta and Rumble v. Bonta.

ADF is representing the satire website The Babylon Bee while California attorney and blogger Kelly Chang Rickert, and Rumble, operator of a large video-sharing platform that hosts a variety of content, including political commentary, are in the second case.

The fight is over AB 2839, “which targets and punishes speakers for engaging in certain political commentary, including posting satirical memes and parodies of politicians, “and AB 2655, “which requires large online platforms to act as the government’s censor and remove certain political commentary from their sites,” the ADF explained.

The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California found both laws to be unconstitutional.

“Our job is hard enough when our jokes keep coming true, as if they were prophecies,” said The Babylon Bee CEO Seth Dillon. “But it becomes significantly more difficult when self-serving politicians abuse their power to try to control public discourse and clamp down on comedy. We’re pleased the court recognized the First Amendment secures our right to tell jokes, even ones the government doesn’t like.”

“It is alarming to think that government officials could decide which political speech is permitted, silenced, or erased altogether,” said Rumble CEO and Founder Chris Pavlovski. “At Rumble, we are unwavering in our commitment to free expression and creative freedom, which is why we’re proud to join with ADF in defending the fundamental right to speak openly online.”

The court’s ruling said, “When it comes to political expression, the antidote is not prematurely stifling content creation and singling out specific speakers but encouraging counter speech, rigorous fact-checking, and the uninhibited flow of democratic discourse.”

The district court granted the satirists their motion for summary judgment, explaining, “Plaintiffs bring a facial attack against AB 2839, arguing that the statute is unconstitutional because it restricts core political speech while simultaneously discriminating based on content, viewpoint, and speaker. California defends the statute by highlighting AB 2839’s exemptions for parody and satire and arguing that the statute only regulates content that purports to be an authentic record of actual events. The Court finds that AB 2839 discriminates based on content, viewpoint, and speaker and targets constitutionally protected speech.”

A sampling of the satire published by the Babylon Bee:

Click this link for the original source of this article.
Author: Bob Unruh

This content is courtesy of, and owned and copyrighted by, https://www.wnd.com and its author. This content is made available by use of the public RSS feed offered by the host site and is used for educational purposes only. If you are the author or represent the host site and would like this content removed now and in the future, please contact USSANews.com using the email address in the Contact page found in the website menu.

USSANews.com
ussanews.com
ussanews.com
USSANews.com