Free speech includes humor, plaintiffs argue in California censorship cases 

California Gov. Gavin Newsom is trying to censor political satire online, but nonprofit legal firm Alliance Defending Freedom is standing resolutely in the way.

ADF, which says it is “committed to protecting religious freedom, free speech, the sanctity of life, parental rights, and God’s design for marriage and family,” is representing the satirical site Babylon Bee, attorney and blogger Kelly Chang Rickert and video-sharing platform Rumble in court cases defending free speech.

The plaintiffs are suing over California bills AB 2839 and AB 2655, both of which Newsom signed into law late last year and were to take effect Jan. 1, though a court has temporarily blocked them.

AB 2839 prohibits “materially deceptive content of elected officials, candidates, elections officials and others,” according to the governor’s press release last September. AB 2655 requires large online platforms, such as X, Meta, or Tik Tok, to identify and remove “deceptive and digitally altered or created” election content.

A ‘recipe for censorship’?

ADF describes the twin cases of The Babylon Bee v. Bonta and Rumble v. Bonta as “defending the constitutionally protected right to freely post political content online.”

“This is a recipe for censorship, and that’s one of the reasons we challenged the law, and the district court judge put the law on hold right when we challenged it,” ADF Senior Counsel Jonathan Scruggs told The Heartlander in an interview.

“What these two laws do in combination is, they’re essentially enormous censorship regimes. It makes it illegal to post or repost a video that is materially set to content, and then it requires the platform to take down these materials.”

When content creator Chris Kohls, known as “Mr Reagan,” published his satirical 2024 political ad depicting Kamala Harris as a presidential candidate, he gained viral attention both from Elon Musk and Newsom – though with differing feedback.

Musk reposted in favor of the satire, while Newsom claimed such content should be illegal – and quickly enshrined his opinion into law.

Immediately after the announcement of these laws, ADF filed a lawsuit on behalf of The Babylon Bee.

Babylon Bee CEO Seth Dillon argues the First Amendment protects the Bee’s comedy.

“Our job is hard enough when our jokes keep coming true, as if they were prophecies,” Dillon said in an ADF press release. “But it becomes significantly more difficult when self-serving politicians abuse their power to try to control public discourse and clamp down on comedy. Unfortunately for them, the First Amendment secures our right to tell jokes they don’t like.”

Shortly thereafter, Rickert and Rumble – in opposition to online platform law AB 2655 – joined the lawsuit as plaintiffs.

“My personal blog and social media accounts don’t need Governor Newsom’s stamp of approval,” Rickert said. “This attempt to silence humor and other content that appeals to me and my audience is a blatant misuse of power to silence dissent.”

Because of the lawsuit, California can’t yet enforce this legislation against the plaintiffs.

A threat to free speech

Sruggs warns the laws not only threaten media platforms, but any American’s free speech. He says any individual could sue another individual for posting or reposting political satire.

“One of the problems with the law is it is so broad and vague that it can cover almost any type of speech like that, type of videos or photos that are digitally altered just to poke fun at somebody who’s a politician. And that’s really troublesome. It’s a recipe for censorship.”

ADF made oral arguments before the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California Aug. 5. The judge ruled AB 2655 – the law that mandates online platforms to regulate and remove political satire – is unconstitutional and should be permanently paused.

The judge agreed to take the other law, AB 2839, under advisement, albeit with harsh comments toward California, and promised to release an opinion on that later this month, according to Scruggs.

Scruggs said online content is becoming more of a legal target that increases censorship and violates the First Amendment.

“These laws are appearing in more and more police states across the country to censor political speech, which is what the core of the First Amendment is about,” Scruggs said, adding the First Amendment allows “the individual citizen, individual voter, to make those calls, and not let the government say what is true and false in the political season.”

The issue extends globally, especially in authoritarian governments such as Brazil and Germany, where government officials, in “a dangerous trend,” try to “shape the marketplace of ideas rather than let free and open debate happen,” he said.

Scruggs said The First Amendment protects Americans’ free speech rights, and ADF is ready to defend these rights up to the national level.

“We’re willing to go state by state and hopefully get to the Supreme Court to get a definitive ruling that the government can’t censor free speech like this,” he said.