Northern California Record wrote about our free speech victory in Kohls v. Bonta.
In his ruling, Judge Mendez said he found the labeling requirement to be as problematic as the rest of the law, noting satire has long been used in American politics to express political speech and ideas.
“Even if AB2839 were only targeted at knowing falsehoods that cause tangible harm, these falsehoods as well as other false statements are precisely the types of speech protected by the First Amendment,” the judge wrote, noting that Supreme Court decisions have explicitly protected “deliberate lies about the government” as constitutional free speech.
“… These same principles safeguarding the people’s right to criticize government and government officials apply even in the new technological age when media may be digitally altered: civil penalties for criticisms on the government like those sanctioned by AB2839 have no place in our system of governance.”
Kohls is represented in the action by attorneys Theodore “Ted” Frank and Adam E. Schulman, of the Hamilton Lincoln Law Institute, of Washington, D.C.
Frank is a high profile attorney who has built a professional reputation for challenging laws that abridge First Amendment rights and for challenging unfair class action lawsuit settlements.
Read more at Northern California Record.