A California bill that would allow the state to fine large social media companies millions of dollars if they amplify violent or extremist content has ignited a free speech fight, pitting Big Tech against those who argue more accountability is needed.
The state legislature, in which Democrats hold a supermajority, passed California Senate Bill 771 Thursday night and is headed to Gov. Gavin Newsom’s (D-CA) desk. He has until Oct. 13 to sign it. If he does, it could create a messy, drawn-out legal battle with multibillion-dollar tech companies over what people can post on their platforms.
The bill, sponsored by Democratic state Sen. Henry Stern, was introduced after X and Meta loosened content moderation and scaled back fact-checking following criticism from President Donald Trump and other Republicans who argued such policies infringed on conservatives’ rights.
Opponents warn that SB771 is a sweeping censorship bill disguised as protection against hate and bigotry and that it threatens the rights of anyone who advocates for beliefs that challenge dominant narratives. Supporters of the bill claim it is much-needed protection against groups that have been given space on social media to spew hateful rhetoric.
According to the bill, large social media companies will be subject to legal challenges and fines if their algorithms “relay content to users” that violates the state’s civil rights protections, such as hate speech. Platforms knowingly violating the law could face fines up to $1 million. The bill would also implement a separate “civil penalty” fine of up to $500,000 for reckless violations. Fines double in cases involving minors.
A fact sheet provided to the Washington Examiner by Stern’s office claimed violence, threats, and intimidation targeting certain historically vulnerable populations, such as Jewish people, women, immigrants, people of color, and those in the LGBT community, are at “historic highs and rising at record-shattering rates.” His office cited a recent study from Harvard that found a causal relationship between widespread violence against historically targeted groups and the practices of social media platforms.
“Notwithstanding the escalating danger, social media platforms have announced dramatic retreats in screening and moderation practices to protect targeted populations,” Stern’s office claimed. “This change could not have come at a more dangerous time for groups that are historically targeted.… This is a national trend that is accelerating.”
Vladislav Khaykin, executive vice president at the Simon Wiesenthal Center, a Los Angeles-based Jewish human rights activist organization, supports the bill.
“In an era when much of our public life unfolds online, the digital world has become a battleground for the very soul of our society,” he said. “Yet the tech companies that control this space are failing us, and the cost of their failure is measured not just in misinformation and division, but also — increasingly — lost lives.”
INTERNET DETECTIVES START DISINFORMATION FRENZY AFTER NAMING WRONG PERSON IN CHARLIE KIRK KILLING
Khaykin, who testified before the California State Assembly in support of SB771, called it a “critical step toward finally holding tech companies accountable for amplifying hate, extremism and disinformation.”
The Simon Wiesenthal Center publishes an annual Digital Terror and Hate Report Card, which assesses how major tech and social media companies handle extremism, harassment, and questionable content on their sites.
“Our latest report paints a dire picture: Most major platforms, including Facebook, X, TikTok, YouTube, Amazon Music and Truth Social, received failing or near-failing grades — Ds and Fs dominate,” Khaykin said. “This failure underscores a hard truth: self-regulation is no regulation at all. Voluntary measures are no match for profit-driven algorithms that thrive on outrage, hate and division.”
Khaykin believes Stern’s bill addressed the problem with “clarity and purpose” and said SB771 “ensures that California’s civil rights protections against hate crimes, harassment and intimidation apply equally to the digital world, especially when algorithms purposefully amplify harmful content. It empowers victims to seek meaningful recourse and imposes penalties scaled to a platform’s size and revenue, making enforcement real — not symbolic. This means that larger platforms, which have a greater impact, will face more severe penalties if they fail to uphold the standards set by Stern’s legislation.”
Critics of the bill call it nothing short of government-sponsored censorship.
Computer & Communications Industry Association, which represents tech giants such as Google, Amazon, and Meta, testified against the bill, arguing that it weakens free speech online and violates First Amendment protections.
“It’s essential that we protect users online, but SB 771 is not the right approach,” said Aodhan Downey, state policy manager for CCIA. “By exposing platforms to vague and costly lawsuits, this bill would force services to become overly cautious and err on the side of censorship — removing far more speech than necessary and restricting legitimate conversations, all to avoid unfounded litigation. This risks undermining free expression, conflicts with federal law, and ultimately would make the online environment less open and less trustworthy. We urge the Assembly to reject this flawed measure and pursue balanced, effective solutions that will truly protect users while upholding constitutional rights and an open internet.”
The California chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations, the nation’s largest Muslim civil rights organization, also took issue with the bill, warning it could be weaponized to suppress protected speech and disproportionately affect marginalized communities, including Muslim, Arab, and Palestinian Californians.
“This bill opens the door for bad actors to disproportionately pressure online corporations into silencing free speech to reduce their financial liability, with no protections for users against those mechanisms,” Oussama Mokeddem, CAIR-CA legislative and government affairs director, said. “It does nothing to address the actual drivers of anti-black racism, Islamophobia, and white supremacist violence. Instead, it risks chilling dissenting voices—particularly those advocating for Palestinian human rights—under the guise of combating hate.”
Shoshana Weissmann, director of digital media at the R Street Institute, told Reason Magazine that the bill would unfairly punish social media companies for speech protected under the First Amendment.
“This bill includes algorithms where new posts are shown first or posts shown are only from the people one follows, without further customization,” she said. “Under this bill, any form of showing content to users would make the companies liable for user speech. This obviously makes no sense.”
She said the bill also has not defined how social media companies can “knowingly promote hate.”
ANTIFASCIST SAYINGS WRITTEN ON KIRK SHOOTER’S BULLET CASINGS: ‘BELLA CIAO’
“Under the law, ‘knowingly’ seems to include anytime the platform uses an algorithm,” she said.
By only penalizing companies with $100 million or more in annual gross profits, the bill could have the opposite effect and send users to smaller social media platforms like 4chan, which has a reputation for allowing more extreme views and content, Weissmann said.
