The two laws are incredibly vague, leaving the door open to potentially widespread censorship when the government dislikes what people say.
In the name of curtailing disinformation, the first law bans “materially deceptive content”—digitally altered media depicting candidates saying or doing something they didn’t if it could potentially harm their “electoral prospects.”
It bans posting and reposting this content online.
The standards for what speech would violate the law are blurry at best.
In practice, it could mean that a California politician who doesn’t like how a post depicts them could sue a private citizen for posting or reposting it. Or someone’s neighbor in California who has opposing political views could see a post they disagree with and sue the poster, forcing them to take down the post and pay damages and attorneys’ fees.
In an already hyperpolarized political environment, this is a chilling prospect.
Humor is also targeted. Satire and parody posts must have disclaimers to say that they are jokes—which kills the joke.
The second law targets internet platforms like X and Facebook, requiring them to sometimes label and other times take down posts with “materially deceptive content” about candidates and elections.
