SB 771 To Regulate Social Media “Intimidation” And “Harassment” – Awaits Governor Newsom’s Signature

SB 771 in California, which Tucker Carlson and others call a censorship bill, sits on the desk of Governor Gavin Newsom after passing both chambers of the state legislature. The bill would establish a penalty of $1 million for social media companies for “engaging in, aiding, abetting, or conspiring to commit acts of violence, intimidation, or coercion based on race, religion, gender, sexual orientation, immigration status, or other protected characteristics.”

The bill states, “California has a compelling interest in protecting its residents from targeted threats, violence, and coercive harassment, particularly when directed at historically marginalized groups.” The bill does not provide definitions for intimidation, coercion, or coercive harassment.

The lack of definitions leaves an open question as to what will be considered a violation and whether social media companies will suppress certain types of posts to avoid violating the law. If Governor Newsom signs the bill, it will take effect in January of 2027, but legal challenges are expected on First Amendment grounds.

The bill references “rising incidents of hate-motivated harm.” An example of “hate-motivated harm” in the bill is a “400 percent rise in anti-LGBTQ+ disinformation and harmful rhetoric on major social media platforms,” which is documented by the Human Rights Campaign (HRC).

The alleged increase in “hate-motivated harm” against the LGBTQ+ community is based on a report from the HRC based on keyword searches following the passage of the Parental Rights Education Act in Florida. The bill was colloquially called the “Don’t Say Gay” bill by opponents to the bill, while proponents called it the “anti-grooming” bill.

The HRC report references the bill as the “Don’t Say Gay” bill or the “Trans bill,” but the bill does not prevent teachers from saying the word “gay” as the nickname suggests.

The bill states, “Classroom instruction by school personnel or third parties on sexual orientation or gender identity may not occur in kindergarten through grade 3 or in a manner that is not age-appropriate or developmentally appropriate for students in accordance with state standards.” HRC uses this nickname for the bill, but said the nicknaming of the bill as the “anti-grooming bill” by Governor Desantis Press Secretary ​​Christina Pushaw, was a “key inflection point” to tie the bill to the “grooming narrative.”

HRC utilized four keyword pairings to conclude that the number of tweets allegedly tying the LGBTQ+ community to grooming increased by 406% in the month following the passage of the bill. HRC included all tweeted mentions of the “anti-grooming bill,” all tweets containing the words “OK groomer,” and all tweets mentioning “grooming” or “pedophilia” alongside “Disney.” HRC also tracked tweets that reference the LGBTQ+ community, including “trans” and “gay,” alongside “pedo,” “predator,” “groomer,” and/or “anti-groomer.”

The bill states, “The purpose of this act is not to regulate speech or viewpoint but to clarify that social media platforms, like all other businesses, may not knowingly use their systems to promote, facilitate, or contribute to conduct that violates state civil rights laws.”

“That’s a censorship law,” Tucker Carlson said. “They’ll say no, ‘we’re actually getting the platforms to censor.’ Right. You’re getting someone else to do the job for you, but if you hire a hitman and he carries out the hit, you’re the murderer. He participated in it, but you hired him. The state of California under Gavin Newsom is about to, we think, censor the opinions of Americans.”

While violence and threats of violence are already against the law, this bill would impose penalties on social media companies for spreading messages that are deemed to be violent, intimidating, or coercive.

Senator Henry Stern is the author and sponsor of the bill, who invited Vlad Khaykin, Executive Vice President of Social Impact & Partnerships for the Simon Wiesenthal Center, to speak to the legislature about the bill in April. Khaykin said social media companies should be held liable for amplifying messages of hate.

“Their [social media companies] algorithms amplify hate because hate drives clicks and clicks drive profits,” Khaykin said. “Voluntary self-regulation has failed. As our report card shows, the profit motive guarantees that platforms will not act with urgency or consistency. Without legislation like this, there is no real recourse for the American public. Chair and members, the status quo is simply unacceptable. The platforms know exactly what they are doing. Shame doesn’t work. Current laws do not work. If we are serious about altering their behavior, then we have to prevent the profits that can be earned for knowingly serving as a hate helper.”

Detractors say the bill will be weaponized to remove certain types of political speech under vague classifications of hate speech. They argue that this will result in bad-faith lawsuits that disproportionately target conservative speech. In response, social media companies may overtly censor more speech to avoid lawsuits and fines. 

“SB 771 isn’t about protecting civil rights, it’s California’s brazen attempt to export its one-party censorship regime to every corner of the internet,” said Elise Pierotti, Senior Vice President of Parler. “This bill hands Sacramento the power to bully platforms into preemptively scrubbing dissent on everything from border security to parental rights. We’ve seen Big Tech abuse vague ‘hate speech’ rules to throttle conservatives for years, including shutting down our platform in 2021; now, lawmakers want to make it mandatory with teeth-shattering fines. This must be stopped before it buries the First Amendment.”

The bill has been sitting on Governor Newsom’s desk since September 22, but his office has not indicated whether he intends to sign or veto the measure. Newsom has until Monday, October 13, to take action on the bill, or it will automatically become law. The law would take effect in January 2027.