It Began a Bit Ago

[Nemo]

and continues.

Nemo

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2018/04/it-begins-california-senator-introduces-bill-to-kill-free-speech-requires-state-sanctioned-fact-checkers-to-approve-online-content/

It Begins: California Senator Introduces Bill to Kill Free Speech, Requires State-Sanctioned Fact Checkers to Approve Online Content
by Jim Hoft April 9, 2018

Richard Pan is a far left California state senator.

Pan recently introduced legislation to crack down on free speech on the internet.

Pan’s legislation would force online publishers to utilize state-sanctioned fact checkers to approve content before it is posted online.

Jon Rappaport reported:

    The bill is titled “SB1424 Internet: social media: false information: strategic plan.”

    It targets social media based in California. But as you read the bill, you see it appears to define social media as any Internet blog, website, or communication.

    SB1424 is brief. Read it:

        This bill would require any person who operates a social media, as defined, Internet Web site with a physical presence in California to develop a strategic plan to verify news stories shared on its Web site. The bill would require the plan to include, among other things, a plan to mitigate the spread of false information through news stories, the utilization of fact-checkers to verify news stories, providing outreach to social media users, and placing a warning on a news story containing false information.

        (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.

        (b) The strategic plan shall include, but is not limited to, all of the following:

        (1) A plan to mitigate the spread of false information through news stories.

        (2) The utilization of fact-checkers to verify news stories.

        (3) Providing outreach to social media users regarding news stories containing false information.

        (4) Placing a warning on a news story containing false information.

        (c) As used in this section, “social media” means an electronic service or account, or electronic content, including, but not limited to, videos, still photographs, blogs, video blogs, podcasts, instant and text messages, email, online services or accounts, or Internet Web site profiles or locations.

    Getting the picture?

    It’s a free speech killer.

This is what the Democratic Party has become — intolerant fascists.

It all goes back to what actor James Woods said months ago.
“Scratch a liberal, find a fascist.”

[JohnyMac]

First they went after the 4A. Then the 2A. Now the 1A. I smell cordite in the air.

[pkveazey]

Well, that ought to backfire real quick. Most of the crap that gets posted on the internet is gotten from the Fake News Media. That ought to put the News outlets out of business real quick. Since the Fake News comes from the Liberal press, they'll be the first to be attacked by that Liberal dumbass' legislation.

[Jackalope]

    The infringement on the First Amendment started actively about 20 years ago during Clinton's presidency.  I noticed it when they started passing laws regarding "hate" speech.  In my interpretation of the First Amendment all speech is permitted, whether it's racist, bigoted, or hateful.  I saw this as a slippery slope, as opposing viewpoints, or differences in interpretation shut down free speech.  So how far is this crap going to go?

[Kbop]

the attacks on our Constitutional Rights started with the whiskey rebellion in the 18th century. 
i think its a constant.  The difference now is how far its gone.  I'm with JM on this one. 

[Nemo]

    The infringement on the First Amendment started actively about 20 years ago during Clinton's presidency.  I noticed it when they started passing laws regarding "hate" speech.  In my interpretation of the First Amendment all speech is permitted, whether it's racist, bigoted, or hateful.  I saw this as a slippery slope, as opposing viewpoints, or differences in interpretation shut down free speech.  So how far is this crap going to go?

You are correct.  SCOTUS (9-0) says no such thing as hate speech. 

Nemo

Matal v. Tam, 582 U.S. ___ (2017)   https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/16pdf/15-1293_1o13.pdf

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2017/06/19/supreme-court-unanimously-reaffirms-there-is-no-hate-speech-exception-to-the-first-amendment/