California Democrats Push to End the 1st Amendment

Leave it to the liberals in California to seek to put an end to the freedom of speech. The past home of the free speech movement has become one of the most devout defenders of liberal fascism in America today. The bill is AB-1104, it’s called The California Political Cyberfraud Abatement Act, and California liberals say it will solve their “fake news” problems. Sadly, they don’t seem to realize that it will create many more problems than it solves.

Fellow patriots, please listen to this short, inspiring message from General Flynn. General Michael Flynn exemplifies patriotism, courage, and love of God and country - despite some of his own countrymen relentlessly attacking him. Donations for his defense are greatly appreciated. If you can only give $5.00, please do so - every little bit helps. Thank you so much, and God bless. Letter from General Flynn.

Here’s what it says:

Existing law makes it unlawful for a person, with intent to mislead, deceive, or defraud, to commit an act of political cyberfraud, as defined. Existing law defines the term “political cyberfraud” to include a knowing and willful act concerning a political Web site that is committed with the intent to deny a person access to a political Web site, deny a person the opportunity to register a domain name for a political Web site, or to cause a person reasonably to believe that a political Web site has been posted by a person other than the person who posted the Web site, and would cause a reasonable person, after reading the Web site, to believe the site actually represents the view of the proponent or opponent of a ballot measure. Existing law also defines the term “political Web site” to mean an Internet Web site that urges or appears to urge the support or opposition of a ballot measure.

This bill would modify the definition of the terms “political cyberfraud” and “political Web site” to include Internet Web sites that urge or appear to urge the support or opposition of candidates for public office. The bill would also make it unlawful for a person to knowingly and willingly make, publish or circulate on a Web site, or cause to be made, published, or circulated in any writing posted on a Web site, a false or deceptive statement designed to influence the vote on any issue submitted to voters at an election or on any candidate for election to public office.

Yes, you read that correctly. The California bill would make it illegal for anyone to write something on a web site that in the governments view was “false or deceptive” and designed to influence voters on certain issues. The question here is, who decides what’s “false or deceptive”? Is it false if a pundit writes that perhaps Mitt Romney didn’t pay taxes, in an effort to make him look bad so people won’t vote for him? Is it false to write that President George W. Bush and his administration “lied” about WMD’s in Iraq in an effort to besmirch the McCain campaign? Or is it false to write that President Trump is acting as a surrogate for the Russians, whom he colluded with, in an effort to undermine his administration?

My assumption is that the government of California would have no problem with the LA Times writing pieces that said these things, but it would be an altogether different issue if a conservative website were to wonder about Obama’s birth certificate. Or if a conservative website were to question President Obama’s loyalties based on the political decisions he was making.

This law is dangerous and it is unconstitutional.

The bill also seems to infringe on Constitutional guarantees of free speech. Political advocacy is a form of protected speech under the First Amendment, and the Supreme Court has been adamant that political advertising—even when it involves smears, exaggerations and “poetic license”—is included under the umbrella of “political advocacy.”