Gavin Newsom Signs California’s Own FOSTA
from the oh-stop dept
A month ago, we explained how California bill AB 1394, kind of a mini-FOSTA for California, was so problematic, and was likely to be found unconstitutional, just like last year’s “Age Appropriate Design Code.” AB 1394 is yet another of those “but think of the children” laws that California loves these days, and it passed with basically no scrutiny at all. There was a brief mention of it in the LA Times, and the only substantive analysis of the bill I can find was mine on Techdirt’s as well as John Perino’s at Tech Policy Press.
And, so, of course, Gavin Newsom has signed the bill into law.
Again, the entire premise of the bill is problematic. It creates FOSTA-like incentives that say people can blame social media and hold sites liable if the site is found to be “knowingly facilitating, aiding, or abetting commercial sexual exploitation.” Now, many people will argue that the “knowingly” part of this makes it okay, because if a site is knowingly doing any of those things, it sure sounds bad!
But, what it means in reality is that California has just opened the floodgates to highly questionable vexatious lawsuits if any CSAM content makes it onto any site. And, as horrible as this is, such content makes it on to any site that allows user uploaded content. We already have laws about how companies have to deal with that content, reporting it to NCMEC, who coordinates with law enforcement over it.
However, thanks to this new law in California, even if a company does everything right, as soon as any CSAM slips through the cracks, they will face a flood of lawsuits saying that they knowingly facilitated it. And then they will have to convince a court that it wasn’t “knowingly.” And the best way to do that is to stop trying to find and stop CSAM, because you can’t know about it if you aren’t looking for it.
In other words, this law is a huge boost for those trafficking in CSAM by tying the hands of websites which have bent over backwards to try to find, report, and stop such content. With AB 1394 such actions will be taken as evidence that the site “knowingly” chose to allow any such content that slips through its defenses. It’s going to be a mess.
Either sites will cut back on their CSAM fighting efforts or, in the alternative, they will massively overblock content to avoid any risk of anything questionable making it to the site. We saw both effects happen after FOSTA became federal law, with sites like Tumblr and eBay blocking a ton of content that might, possibly, lead to lawsuits, and other sites cutting back on their policing efforts altogether.
Lots of people warned Newsom about the problems of this bill, but, you know he wants to be President and while apparently he can handle headlines over how he vetoed unemployment support for striking workers or capping the price of insulin, he needs some fake headlines about how he’s “protecting the children online,” even as the last bill he signed to do that has already been found to be a 1st Amendment violation.
Filed Under: ab 1394, california, content moderation, csam, facilitation, fosta, gavin newsom, knowingly
Comments on “Gavin Newsom Signs California’s Own FOSTA”
We already have laws about how companies have to deal with that content, reporting it to NCMEC, who coordinates with law enforcement over it.
But nothing that forces law enforcent to do anything, which is the real problem (aside from the people who abuse children).
Re:
It’s funny how all the politicians blaming social media for this stuff never once ask why it is that law enforcement rarely does anything with NCMEC reports, isn’t it?
Re: Re:
Best I can do is a war on “drugs.”
AB 1394 — interesting number 1394.
What Can I Do with FireWire i.Link 1394 interface port?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ltBV3Olqeos
could not resist.
Re:
FireWire was amazing for external optical drives back in the day.
Well that's one way to protect the worst sort of people...
Strange time for the politicians involved to tell/remind the voting public how much they want to protect those that create and share CSAM(hose the only beneficiaries of the law other than politicians) but who am I to question their political wisdom and experience I guess?
I want to point out that there is effectively zero chance of Newsom or really any of those involved being unaware of the consequences.
They’ve either made the choice to disbelieve or to not care.
Re: My thoughts
The
most charitableleast uncharitable reading I have of Newsom here is that he is doing this performatively knowing the bill will be struck down sooner rather than later. And since this bill has over a year until it takes effect, it would not surprise me if he were just that vapidly venal.It’s also possible that he thinks this bill will withstand scrutiny anyway, or that he reckons that any failure can be used as an excuse to whine at right-wing court influence getting in the way — regardless of whether the judge in question, or the ruling text, is right wing in any way.
At this point I’m just focused on Hochul in my state. I hope she gets fucking primaried over the various shit she’s pulled.
Re: Re:
Same.
Re:
I’ve seen the same with KOSA. A parade of self-proclaimed “allies” who are perfectly happy to throw queer people under the bus if it means they can pretend to have done something to help children.
(And no, they don’t see how the existence of queer kids is relevant.)
AB1394
Hell will freeze over before the Dems will let Newsom run for President – concerns over October surprises from his ex wife the current would be Mrs. Donald Trump Jr. However, in this case the bigger problem is that for all the flaws this bill has Newsom is not “solving” any problems for kids by throwing open the jail house doors and giving the handful of predators who are actually arrested and convicted out of jail after de minimus sentences (in one notorious case two days in the LA County Jail.). The revolving door is wide open w/ all of these convicts at the highest possible risk for reoffending.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Mandatory NCMEC reporting is a bummer. Another private organization with an anti-freedom agenda propped up by the government.
Re:
Ok, groomer.
"Do something" laws
“Please do something about CSAM.
– Alright, I did something.
– It makes the situation worse!
– But that was something. Now, praise me for doing something. You know what? Don’t bother, I’ll just praise myself.”
This is the standard politics nowadays.
Don’t plan, don’t study the impact of a bill.
Just write something up that appears good at a glance, market it as “doing something”, and sing your own praises for a while. Rinse and repeat. Also, condemn any opposition as “aiding and abetting the criminals”. Because they’re obviously wrong if they oppose “something”, aren’t they?
Surface-level solutions, and shutting down the discussion with appeal to emotion. Because actual solutions are difficult and complex. And that’s too much work for them, apparently.