OPINION:
The idea of enacting a hate speech code ought to offend the left and the right alike. Sadly, it does not. A bill sits on the desk of California Gov. Gavin Newsom that would criminalize mean comments on the internet.
If signed, activist prosecutors would be empowered to hit Facebook, Instagram, TikTok, X and the like with million-dollar fines whenever they permit a user to mock someone’s “race, religion, gender, sexual orientation, immigration status, or other protected characteristics.”
Social media companies would have no choice but to revive the heavy-handed censorship regime imposed during the lockdown era to silence dissenting views on the jab or COVID-19’s origin.
Big Tech used algorithmic penalties and account banning to construct an illusion of consensus. Time has revealed the holes in that agreed-upon narrative, with the stifled opinions proving closer to the truth.
The Golden State’s vague proposal could enshrine the misguided approach by applying “certain civil penalties” or “misdemeanors” on anyone who says a man pretending to be a woman isn’t actually a woman.
Lawmakers betray that intention through the examples cited in Senate Bill 771. “The Human Rights Campaign and the Center for Countering Digital Hate have documented a 400-percent rise in anti-LGBTQ+ disinformation and harmful rhetoric on major social media platforms,” it says.
Given the bill also asserts that, “The Los Angeles County Commission on Human Relations reported in December 2024 that hate crimes involving anti-immigrant slurs increased by 31 percent,” it would be only a matter of time before Republicans are rounded up for daring to imply illegal aliens belong in their home country, not in the U.S.
Even some conservatives are clumsily mimicking the left’s rhetoric in response to Charlie Kirk’s murder. Attorney General Pam Bondi appeared on the Katie Miller podcast to say: “There’s free speech, and then there’s hate speech. There’s no place, especially now, especially after what happened to Charlie, in our society.”
The late Turning Point USA founder would not want his memory to be abused this way. Ms. Bondi clarified on X: “Hate speech that crosses the line into threats of violence is not protected by the First Amendment. It’s a crime. For far too long, we’ve watched the radical left normalize threats, call for assassinations, and cheer on political violence. That era is over.”
It’s up to society, not the government, to punish those who “cheer on political violence.” Censorious leftists wrap their malign agenda around nebulous concepts such as “hate speech” that have no place in a sensible person’s vocabulary.
Consider what’s happening across the Atlantic. Britain is arresting people by the thousands for “giving offense” through hateful utterances. Home Office statistics show that the police filed 140,561 “hate crime” charges last year, about 51,000 of which were “public order” and “malicious communication offenses.”
The statute’s implementation is entirely one-sided. Last year, Jordan Parlour was sentenced to 20 months in prison because he went on Facebook to endorse the rowdy protest against foreigners receiving taxpayer-funded room and board at a hotel in his hometown.
Judge Guy Kearl condemned the 28-year-old’s thought crime from the bench: “You went on to say that you did not want your money going to immigrants who ‘rape our kids and get priority.’ … As is recognized on your behalf, this offense is so serious that an immediate custodial sentence is unavoidable.”
Neither the federal government nor California should be involved in deciding what words and phrases are acceptable in public.
Please read our comment policy before commenting.