Social media platform: traditional First Amendment forum.
Summary
Existing constitutional law establishes the right of freedom of speech. Existing case law interpreting those provisions applies varying levels of scrutiny to state action that restricts protected speech, based in part on the nature of the forum in which the speech occurs. This bill would declare that, notwithstanding any law, a social media platform, as defined, shall be considered a traditional First Amendment forum for those purposes, as specified. The bill would require a social media platform located in California to develop a policy or mechanism to address content or communications that constitute unprotected speech, including obscenity, incitement of imminent lawless action, and true threats, or that purport to state factual information that is demonstrably false.
Bill status
failed
1 of 4 stages cleared
Introduction
Feb 2023
Committee Review
Floor Vote
Governor
Introduced Feb 14, 2023
Last action Feb 1, 2024
Floor votes
How they voted
No floor votes recorded yet.
Full legislative history
Actions timeline
Total actions
6
Key actions
3
Committee
4
Feb 1, 2024
Lower · Passed
From committee: Filed with the Chief Clerk pursuant to Joint Rule 56.
lower
Mar 28, 2023
Lower · Passed
In committee: Set, first hearing. Hearing canceled at the request of author.
lower
Feb 23, 2023
Committee
Referred to Coms. on JUD. and P. & C.P.
lower
Feb 15, 2023
Lower · Passed
From printer. May be heard in committee March 17.
lower
1 primary · 0 co-sponsors
Sponsors
Role
Legislator
Party
State
District
P
BE
Bill Essayli
RRepublican
Ask Maddy
·
AI policy assistant
Ask Maddy about AB 836
Scope: CA
Hi! I can help you understand AB 836. What would you like to know?
Try one of these
i
Maddy answers using official bill text and legislative records. Always verify before sharing.
Sources cited inline