2018 Apr 10, 6:33am
10,697 views 38 comments
(a) Any person who operates a social media Internet Web site with physical presence in California shall develop a strategic plan to verify news stories shared on its Internet Web site.
Given the costs of real estate (I'm sure commercial or land for server buildings is high as well like residential) in CA being so high, are there that many web sites "physically" sitting in CA on a server? This seems kind of like a stupid plan given the relative ease in moving a web sites information to another physical location. Businesses will just move the "site" to another state in order not have to deal with one of the dumbest laws/regulations I maybe have seen in a while.
We really don't even know if this website is hosted in CA.
but it's never going to pass.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
I don't see how that bill could possibly stand, since it would be a clear violation of the first amendment:
I still can't believe that this is real, but it is
Voting Democrat has consequences.
HEYYOU's federal tax proves that there is no tax cut.A tax is just an example of Republican Redistribution Socialism that steals from those that create their personal wealth.Fucking Rep/Con theives! Why do they punish the Free Market?
all joking aside, it's unbelievable (maybe it's not) such a law could even be proposedIt seems unenforceable just from a practical levelI mean, what are the criteria for proving "truth", say of a particular interpretation of certain events. What would be the criteria to determine "truth" or "falsity" of some interpretation of the RFK assassination? If someone suggested the CIA was behind it thru Palestian agents it controlled, would that be sanctionable under the law if the site that hosted such comments did not "examine" it and post appropriate warnings?It really seems that the whole purpose of the law is to further burden the expression of free speech, forcing it into channels acceptable to the powers that be. Or just to chill the expression of speaking generally other than in official and corporate channels.
I still can't believe that this is real, but it is:
As long as the "fact checkers" are immense hirsute lesbians, gays, transgendered, university diversity gatekeepers, feminists and their puling cucks, minorities seeking reparations, public service union reps, anti-gun weepers and Hollywood Royals, I have absolutely no problem with these policies. I know they will only reflect the fairest of fair speech.
California to require Patrick to change his Forum. We will have to submit our posts to him, so he can forward it to the official ministry of "Snopes", for approval to post.
I don't post fake news.
But the current polarization we have with half the population being totally cool with a President that lies constantly, is major (dead) canary in the coal mine (so to speak).
The left has become anti-labor, ironically. Long ago, they supported labor against capital. Now they have abandoned labor and concentrate only on non-issues like tranny bathrooms.
Now they have abandoned labor and concentrate only on non-issues like tranny bathrooms.
I still can't believe that this is real, but it is:https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=201720180SB1424
drafting of a plan
How do you figure?
bob2356 saysdrafting of a planDrafting of a plan to do away with the First Amendment is important and sinister. Low and Pan have got to go.