Rumble takes on California in a groundbreaking lawsuit, challenging what it sees as unconstitutional censorship laws that threaten the very foundation of free speech online.
At a Glance
- Rumble sues California over AB 2655, a law requiring platforms to censor “materially deceptive” political content
- The lawsuit claims the law violates First Amendment rights and forces platforms to act as “censorship police”
- California’s legislation was expedited after concerns over a satirical video about Kamala Harris
- Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) attorneys are representing Rumble in the federal lawsuit
- The case highlights growing tension between government regulation and online free speech
Rumble Challenges California’s Censorship Law
In a bold defense of free speech, Rumble, Inc. has filed a lawsuit against the California Attorney General and Secretary of State, challenging the constitutionality of Assembly Bill 2655. This new law requires online platforms to report, remove, or label posts deemed “materially deceptive” related to elections, public officials, and candidates. The lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California, marks a significant stand against what Rumble perceives as government overreach in regulating online political discourse.
The legal action comes in response to California’s recent legislative moves, which Rumble argues infringe on users’ First Amendment rights. AB 2655, along with its companion law AB 2839, mandates that platforms like Rumble censor political content deemed harmful to candidates’ reputations or likely to undermine election confidence. These laws effectively deputize social media companies to restrict speech based on vague and potentially biased standards.
BREAKING: Rumble Sues California For ‘Censorship’ Over Laws Restricting User Speechhttps://t.co/J03KxcJ4Hf
— Rumble 🏴☠️ (@rumblevideo) November 27, 2024
The Catalyst: A Satirical Video and Government Overreaction
The controversy surrounding these laws was ignited by an unexpected source: a satirical video featuring Vice President Kamala Harris. California Governor Gavin Newsom’s reaction to this video led to an expedited push for legislation aimed at combating what he perceived as harmful political speech. Newsom stated, “Manipulating a voice in an ‘ad’ like this one should be illegal.”
In response, Chris Pavlovski, Chairman and CEO of Rumble, said, “The very thought of the government judging the content of political speech, and then deciding whether it should be permitted, censored, or eliminated altogether is about the most chilling thing you could imagine.”
Rumble’s Stand for Free Speech
The company’s lawsuit represents a principled stand against what it sees as unconstitutional censorship. Rumble, which prides itself on providing a platform for open communication and diverse viewpoints, argues that these laws force it to alter its content policies and effectively become an arm of government censorship.
The lawsuit, filed by Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) attorneys, argues that AB 2655 and AB 2839 violate the First Amendment by compelling Rumble to censor its users and promote government-approved messages. This legal challenge is not just about Rumble’s rights as a platform but about protecting the fundamental principle of free speech in the digital age.
Implications for Online Freedom
The outcome of this lawsuit could have far-reaching consequences for online speech and the future of social media platforms. If California’s laws are allowed to stand, it could open the floodgates for similar legislation across the country, creating a patchwork of state-level speech regulations that would make it nearly impossible for platforms to operate without becoming de facto censors.
