California Senator Forced To Pull Bill Banning "Fake News" After Realizing It's Idiotic

Tyler Durden's picture

California is known far and wide for it's wacky regulations.  In fact, just last fall we wrote about SB 1383, a very significant piece of legislation signed into law by Jerry Brown which requires a 40% reduction in methane gas emissions from cow flatulence by 2030 (no, can take a look here: "Here Are Some Of The Ridiculous New State Laws That Will Take Effect January 1st - Happy New Year!")

But a recent piece of legislation introduced by California Assemblyman Ed Chau (D-Monterey Park), "The California Political Cyberfraud Abatement Act or AB 1104 for short, gives the "cow fart" bill a run for its money in terms of its complete idiocy.  The bill, filed Wednesday in the Assembly’s Committee on Privacy and Consumer Affairs, would have effectively made it a crime to be wrong on the Internet.

The text of the bill implicated anyone who writes, publishes or even shares news stories that could be false, if those news stories are later found to have had an impact on an election.  From the bill:

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.

And even though author Ed Chau described AB 1104 as "an important step forward in the fight against 'fake news' and deceptive campaign tactics", the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), a digital-rights advocacy group, said the bill was “so obviously unconstitutional, we had to double check that it was real.”

Memo to California Assemblymember Ed Chau: you can’t fight fake news with a bad law.


On Tuesday, the California Assembly’s Committee on Privacy and Consumer Affairs, which Chau chairs, will consider A.B. 1104—a censorship bill so obviously unconstitutional, we had to double check that it was real.


This bill will fuel a chaotic free-for-all of mudslinging with candidates and others being accused of crimes at the slightest hint of hyperbole, exaggeration, poetic license, or common error. While those accusations may not ultimately hold up, politically motivated prosecutions—or the threat of such—may harm democracy more than if the issue had just been left alone. Furthermore, A.B. 1104 makes no exception for satire and parody, leaving The Onion and Saturday Night Live open to accusations of illegal content. Nor does it exempt news organizations who quote deceptive statements made by politicians in their online reporting—even if their reporting is meant to debunk those claims. And what of everyday citizens who are duped by misleading materials: if 1,000 Californians retweet an incorrect statement by a presidential candidate, have they all broken the law?


At a time when political leaders are promoting “alternative facts” and branding unflattering reporting as “fake news,” we don’t think it’s a good idea to give the government more power to punish speech.

As of right now it looks as if the legislation has been pulled after Chau just cancelled a hearing originally scheduled for Monday.  Presumably Chau got a little pushback from mainstream media outlets after they realized his bill would effectively ban them, and their fake "Russian hacking" narratives from California.

Here is the full text of the bill for your reading pleasure: 

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
WhackoWarner's picture

This is no longer amusing.  None of it,

usa needs emergency mental intervention. Gone way past discussion.  Whole friggin country needs to be locked up for their own protection.

Rest of the world is actually no longer laughing at the stupidity.

It is not even sane.  The discussions of all this garbage are simply idiotic, addle-pated distractions.  Who can take any of this seriously?

wee-weed up's picture

No doubt he got threats from the MSM... Banning "Fake News" would put them out of business!

stizazz's picture

The Fake Bill on Fake News got Flaked out.

LowerSlowerDelaware_LSD's picture
LowerSlowerDelaware_LSD (not verified) stizazz Mar 31, 2017 9:40 PM

Damn!  I wanted the Wash Post, NY Times, CNN, NBC, ABC, PBS, et al, all banned and/or fined for their fake news.  Maybe they moron finally got it?

"Hillary(!) To Win By Twelve Percent!"

Fake news...

techies-r-us's picture
techies-r-us (not verified) kavlar Mar 31, 2017 10:00 PM

With enough fake stuff going around, we're getting accustomed to sniffing them out.

kavlar's picture

Guess that's the positive side of fakery.

stizazz's picture

Wonder what would possess a politician to do something that stupid.



My bad!

jcaz's picture

I'd rather see Leslie Chow in this office.....

CheapBastard's picture

I know several Chinese-Americans in Cali and they all say these Asian Congressmen are 100% out of sync with the Chinese people there who are mostly very conservative...but, these gubmint officials are elected by the diverse peeples/FSA so they pander to them and ignore the smaller pop of conservative Asians.

They say it's crucial not to judge these officials by the way they look and think they are conservative because they are far left so as to cater to the Cali FSA and Hillary Marxists. That's why they blend in with other left wing Libtards like Boxer, Finesteen, Piglosi, Liu, Waters, etc.

TBT or not TBT's picture

The idiot lawmaker probably got schooled that banning such speech would criminalize his own side's SOP.  

SmokeyBlonde's picture

Apologies ... but who gives a Fuck what they say as they have not done anything about it .... I hazard they are worse as they know the politician is full of shit and doesn't represent them and yet they do nothing but bitch to you. Until they either 1) stand up against it or 2) Go Galt, who gives a rats flying fuck at a donut what they say ...

ebear's picture

Based my own (fairly extensive) knowledge of Chinese people, I'd agree with this statement.

IntTheLight's picture

I wholly disagree. Their society based on everyone thinking alike and using social pressure to achieve conformity.

imaginalis's picture

What an utter moron. I bet he thinks the MSM deliver fair and balanced fact based reporting.


BarkingCat's picture

Talking to yourself using 3 different id.

You probably jerk off in from of double mirrors while talking dirty to the reflections and fantasizing that your in a 3 way homo sandwich.

IntTheLight's picture

Who are the idiots downvoting you?

xavi1951's picture

LIBERALISM/PROGRESSIVISM are a mental illness!

83_vf_1100_c's picture

Anyone else noticing that bibleguy's posts are immediately repled to by the same few accts. It's almost like he has his own groupies... or multiple accts. Shocking, I know.

bob_bichen's picture
bob_bichen (not verified) 83_vf_1100_c Mar 31, 2017 11:23 PM

RE: chronic SPAMMER  kavlar, techies-r-us, lexxus, stizazz, mano-a-mano, etc.   (ALL THE SAME PERSON REPLYING TO HIS OWN COMMENTS)

You have NO IDEA how troubled this individual, the Spammer With One Hundred Log-ons, really is.  He has trolled and spammed his website crap on here forever, always with the same macabre conversations with a long series of "imaginary playmates." It really is quite perverse and whoever "he" is, he seems to really get his rocks off voting himself up arrows and replying to his own comments, and also appears to have no life beyond making off-topic comments with his link to the SPAM-, TROJAN-, VIRUS-INFESTED  "biblicisminstitute,wordpress,com"  (sometimes disguised as a short-URL  )


<<Tonight's little commentary on another thread is classic --- one Invisible Friend (Mano-a-Mano) "lives" in Mexico and another Invisible Friend (stizazz) "wants to be his roommate."    Such a fantasy life -- do all of the "Invisible Friends" wear fishnets and makeup as well??  >>

He shares this pathology with "Audio Feeline " "blue fin" AKA "TrollAndDump" (formerly known as XYTHRAS - since banned) whose "dailywesterner,com" is, if anything WORSE than the biblicism fetishist, also SPAM-, TROJAN-, VIRUS-INFESTED.

Other ZHers  may wish to take one minute to send an email to requesting that all of the "imaginary friends" (in the list below; copy and paste)   be permanently banned for spamming.

As you do that, use your imagination to try to conceive of what type of whackadoo would spend their life in pajamas, fake eyelashes and high heels, eating stale chips and drinking cheap soda from the dollar store, popping zits, and spamming zerohedge. 

Many of the following have been banned but, like crabs and cockroaches, they just seem to come back.  The "short list of imaginary playmates" includes:

Audio Feeline
blue fin

Son of Loki






Aristotle of Greece





Yippee Kiyay


SumTing Wong

King Tut



Holy hand grenade of Antioch,

etc. etc. etc.

Joyo Bliss's picture

That ^^ list ^^ reminds me of a joke I heard an Irishman tell:

Every morning I wake up and read the obituaries; if my name's not on it, I get up.

Joe Sichs Pach's picture

Good job tracking all the accounts. Looks like it accurately accounts for all the "likes" the comments usually get. Sad state of affairs for this user and their harem of accounts.

Gargoyle's picture

No, it's not a good job.  this cunt refuses to remove my handle from his pussy-hurt whiner list of "research".

If I'm a spammer, why am I taking the time to call him a cunt?

Fuck you, Bob.

True Blue's picture

He's simply confused your name with one "Gargoylian" that that particular spammer did use.

imaginalis's picture

His writings are quite funny if you think how long it took him to delude himself into believing his thoughts were worth sharing. He needs to find other suckers to prop up a wilting faith in his own delusions.

BarkingCat's picture

It's the same asshole posting from multiple accounts.

political_proxy's picture

Youre saying the stroy is fake about fake?

Ex-Oligarch's picture

The article says that the bill "would have effectively made it a crime to be wrong on the Internet."

That's not the worst of it. 

It would have made it a crime to be right -- to publish true statements -- if those statements were found to be "deceptive," whatever that means. 

hxc's picture

Anyone claiming exclusive command of the truth, you can be sure will fucking lie to you. Like these "fact-checking" idiots.

SWRichmond's picture

Rest of the world is actually no longer laughing at the stupidity.

Actually, the rest of the world is in the process of passing and enforcing "blasphemy" laws, which are deliberately aimed at preventing anyone from saying anything which might piss off the 7th century immigrants and make them feel "unwelcome".

IntTheLight's picture

Do not ever question or criticize honor killing, female genital mutilation or burkas.

scoutshonor's picture

That right there was probably why they had to pull it--someone most likely figured out that Jerry Brown would be the first one prosecuted for publishing a fake budget that he knew to be fake.

ebear's picture

"The article says that the bill "would have effectively made it a crime to be wrong on the Internet.""

And so it should be! 

I mean, seriously man.  Look around you.

True Blue's picture

He probably came to the sudden realization that "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" would finally make their campaign lies actually illegal. (And yes, a court has decided that their lies are not false advertising and they cannot be held to account for them.)

Prisoners_dilemna's picture

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

California whack jobs can make California law according to the CA Constitution. Unless you live in CA this bill doesn't impact you. This California bill only applies inside CA jurisdiction. This bill will only hasten the demise of CA. Let California be California. I say, "Go ahead and adopt it, CA, then get flushed".

Anyone know if the CA Constitution forbids the CA legislature from passing laws abriding or limiting free speech? I know rioting and protesting to shut down free speech is cool in CA, but I'm curious what the CA Constitution says about the CA legislature passing speech-restricting bills...

Either the EFF is referring to the something in the CA Constitution or the EFF doesn't know fuck all about United States or California jurisprudence and haven't read the United States (federal club) Constitution (charter) which clearly states Congress is being restricted, not the CA state legislature which was clearly omitted from the 1st Amendment, as it must be. “so obviously unconstitutional, we had to double check that it was real.”


*edit* California Consitution: Art.1 Sec. 2(a) Every person may freely speak, write and publish his or her sentiments on all subjects, being responsible for the abuse of this right. A law may not restrain or abridge liberty of speech or press.

Two thoughts... First, libel and slander are "abuses of right to free speech". Probably fraudlent speech and perjury as well.

Second, CA voters might want to make sure their reps actually read the CA State Charter before empowering the reps to pass laws. Basic shit here CA...

in4mayshun's picture

Unfortunately there are currently too many members of the free-shit army here in Cali, so traitorous communist politicians will keep getting elected until the state becomes like Detroit. But it won't be long now, just look at downtown LA. The culmination of socialism is coming home to roost.

Twee Surgeon's picture

How about 18 US code / 241 Conspiracy against Rights, Federal Law of the Land that Chau has taken an Oath to Uphold and Protect ?

Do not expect to see the Police turn up any time soon in Sacramento...

Plain reading for Plain Law, Not that complicated and requires zero interpretation as far as I can tell.

Look for yourself........

Prisoners_dilemna's picture

Well hey brother, if you got standing then uphold the law and wipe the court floor with him!!

Twee Surgeon's picture

But that is the problem. there is no Law in the land anymore, is that not clear to your eyes ?

There is no Law of the Land Anymore and we have Therefore lost all Shape and form. The Fundamental Fabric of a Civilization is Gone, Done and Over.

Laws in the United States are Enforced based on Union Policy, Corporate Policy, Prosecutors Office Policy, Pension Fund Policy, Not Common Law.

Going to Court is just an Invitation to Decide on the Size of the Grit you would Least Preffer in the Anal Lube for the Fuckin yer Getting by Tape Worm Class 101.


Prisoners_dilemna's picture

What I see is misunderstanding of jurisdiction combined with ignorance of how to read Code.

Very rarely is Code written in "plain words". A "plain intepretation" of Code is a wrong interpretation. The priests encoded the Code so that you would be mislead by a "plain reading". Then the Chaus piled in.

There is a Law of the Land and it works, if you know how to work it. I see that you don't and so as usual, the Law of the Land works against you and thepeople.  We're ignorant, complacent, and lazy. I know "the law" is large and encoded and confusing. Shall we just roll over and accept our shackles then?? I suggest, NO! Read your constitution. Read legislative acts. Then read the encoded version of those acts and things will become clear. Then read the implementing regulations. Learn about the relationship between these bodies of law. Visit your nearest law library. Ask the clerk for help. Read court cases (common law). Read ALI publications such as "Restatement of the Law". Most importantly... turn off your tv and stop learning from people less intelligent than you. (that includes most of youtube).

Oh hey, footballs on. Enough of this responsible American talk. Gotta go be entertained.

“Knowledge will forever govern ignorance; and a people who mean to be their own governors must arm themselves with the power which knowledge gives.”  -James Madison


“Although all men are born free, slavery has been the general lot of the human race. Ignorant--they have been cheated; asleep--they have been surprised; divided--the yoke has been forced upon them. But what is the lesson?…the people ought to be enlightened, to be awakened, to be united, that after establishing a government they should watch over it....It is universally admitted that a well-instructed people alone can be permanently free.”  -James Madison


PS. If you're "learning" the law from David Cammegh your doing it wrong. If you wanna learn from youtube (uggggghhh), try one of these videos instead;


this guy,

SmokeyBlonde's picture

Pretty big assumption that they are not only literate but also sentient and capable of rationale thought ... I'n not taking those odds!

IntTheLight's picture

I hope they mandate the HPV vaccine. Then people in California will no longer be able to reproduce themselves. We will be safe.

Ex-Oligarch's picture

Time to brush up on your federal Constitutional Law. 

In 1925 the Supreme Court held that the Fourteenth Amendment ("...nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law") incorporated the First Amendment, so that state and local governments can not enforce laws limiting federal free speech rights.  The logic is that First Amendment rights are the sort of "liberty" to which the Fourteenth Amendment refers.  The case is called Gitlow v. New York, and the doctrine has been fleshed out in a series of subsequent decisions over the decades.

I'm going to refrain from snark, because I appreciate your effort to look at the actual text and figure it out for yourself. 

Prisoners_dilemna's picture

I will readily admit I don't know everything, Mr. Snarky. ;p

"The precise question presented, and the only question which we can consider under this writ of error, then is, whether the statute, as construed and applied in this case, by the State courts, deprived the defendant of his liberty of expression in violation of the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment."

"That a State in the exercise of its police power may punish those who abuse this freedom by utterances inimical to the public welfare, tending to corrupt public morals, incite to crime, or disturb the public peace, is not open to question."

"Thus it was held by this Court in the Fox Case, that a State may punish publications advocating and encouraging a breach of its criminal laws; and, in the Gilbert Case, that a State may punish utterances teaching or advocating that its citizens should not assist the United States in prosecuting or carrying on war with its public enemies."

"By enacting the present statute the State has determined, through its legislative body, that utterances advocating the overthrow of organized government by force, violence and unlawful means, are so inimical to the general welfare and involve such danger of substantive evil that they may be penalized in the exercise of its police power. That determination must be given great weight."

"'Manifestly, the legislature has authority to forbid the advocacy of a doctrine designed and intended to overthrow the government without waiting until there is a present and imminent danger of the success of the plan advocated."

"And finding, for the reasons stated, that the statute is not in itself unconstitutional, and that it has not been applied in the present case in derogation of any constitutional right, the judgment of the Court of Appeals is AFFIRMED"

"The defendant's brief does not separately discuss any of the rulings of the trial court. It is only necessary to say that, applying the general rules already stated, we find that none of them involved any invasion of the constitutional rights of the defendant."

To my reading it appears the court is not saying that states can't enforce laws limiting federal free speech rights. Neither is the court saying states can't enforce their own laws that limit speech. The court may be holding that states can not enforce laws limiting federal free speech rights. without giving a defendent his due process under the 14th.

Are you trolling me?? The court held the exact opposite of what you suggested. I appreciate the lack of snark, you snarky SOB. ;p I am happy to have anyone teach me more in this field.


As I said above. Let CA be CA. They will reap what they sow. Let them limit speech that will melt snowflakes. If the general welfare of CA snowflakes is in danger then CA, in its own f-cked up way, should limit speech. We don't need more snowflakes rioting over someone else speech. It is within the state’s power to prevent the disturbance of the peace and regulate speech that may incite crime even if the threat of such action is not immediate. ALthough I agree with the discent, A state may not prohibit speech unless it presents a clear and present danger to the public interest.

Ex-Oligarch's picture

You left out this part:

"For present purposes we may and do assume that freedom of speech and of the press-which are protected by the First Amendment from abridgment by Congress-are among the fundamental personal rights and 'liberties' protected by the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment from impairment by the States."

That's the key innovation in Gitlow -- recognizing that federal free speech rights can be asserted against the States because of the Fourteenth Amendment. 

The Court then looked at the question of whether the particular speech in Gitlow -- a socialist manifesto urging violent overthrow of the government -- was protected under the ***federal*** Constitution.  It held that it was not so protected, using the reasoning you quote.

As you noticed, there is an inconsistency between the words "without due process of law" in the 14th Amendment, which seem to call for only procedural protections, and the Supreme Court's use of the incorporation doctrine to give substantive 1st Amendment protections against actions by a State.  Lots of people have been unhappy about that over the years, but only nine have the chance to actually do anything about it.

Prisoners_dilemna's picture

Thank you. I am a simple layman trying to wrap my head around all of this.

Do you agree with Twee Surgeons comment above then?, the law is dead?

I've seen other examples of jurisprudence which are analogous to Gitlow. ie. Circuit City v. Adams, 532 U. S. 105 (2001) where in my reading, it appears the Supreme Court went out of it's way to enlarge an otherwise limited Act, by way of selected application of ejusdem generis.

I don't understand how the Court applied this maxim to a single section and not the whole act?!?!?

Is the Constitution swept away thru time by the game "telephone". Is the Constitutions meaning slowly being lost to history thru repeated misinterpretations???

Are there any Supreme Court justices worthy? Clarence Thomas seems reasonable to me.