California’s attempt to erase humor failed after the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California found the two laws unconstitutional during the Babylon Bee v. Bonta and Rumble v. Bonta lawsuits.
In 2024, lawmakers passed AB 2839, which targets and punishes speakers for engaging in certain political commentary and requires political memes or satire shared online to carry oversized disclaimers that would effectively drown out the joke. They also passed AB 2655, which ordered large online platforms to act as government censors by removing or labeling political commentary the state deemed misleading.
For the plaintiffs like The Babylon Bee, blogger Kelly Chang Rickert, and Rumble, these bills would destroy the very essence of their work: cleverly putting a spin on politics, religion, and everyday life through obvious parody to shed light on serious issues. Their posts are unmistakably comedic, yet Newsom and many other CA legislators just could not handle it. Often, when scrolling through numerous disheartening posts, The Babylon Bee knows how to bring a moment of levity and a smile to readers scrolling through the media.
Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF), a nonprofit legal organization dedicated to protecting religious liberty, free speech, and the sanctity of life, argued that the two laws gave the government sweeping power to silence political humor and commentary.
“Making fun of politicians and criticizing the government is a core First Amendment right. That includes using new technology to create parody campaign ads or satirical memes,” said ADF Senior Counsel Johannes Widmalm-Delphonse, who defended free speech before the court.
Judge Rebukes California’s Overreach
Under AB 2839, even an obvious joke could have triggered lawsuits and penalties if bureaucrats or political operatives claimed it was misleading.
“Censorship is rising, and it’s easy to think about it in European nations under the Digital Services Act, but we need to remember we’re the last western country in the world that is resisting the type of hate speech and misinformation laws,” ADF CEO Kristen Waggoner said in an interview with FOX News.
“California’s AB 2839 strikes at the heart of the First Amendment and does not overcome the constitutional safeguards erected to protect Plaintiffs’ right to speak,” Judge John A. Mendez wrote in the judgment for the plaintiffs’ summary. “To be sure, deepfakes and artificially manipulated media arguably pose significant risks to electoral integrity, but the challenges launched by digital content on a global scale cannot be quashed through censorship or legislative fiat.”
The court also found that AB 2839 was discriminatory based on content, viewpoint, and speakers.
Mendez continued, “Just as the government may not dictate the canon of comedy, California cannot pre-emptively sterilize political content.” He reinforced this principle by citing the Supreme Court’s decision in Meyer v. Grant. “‘…In this field, every person must be his own watchman for truth, because the forefathers did not trust any government to separate the true from the false for us.’ “
Free Speech Wins for Satirists and Creators
While striking down AB 2839, the court also addressed California’s second statute, AB 2655. Before the judge issued his final ruling, ADF and the state reached a stipulation and ordered a formal agreement approved by the court that immediately protected speakers from AB 2655’s requirements.
Under this agreement, California officials promised not to enforce AB 2655 while the lawsuit moved forward. The law would have forced large social-media platforms to act as government censors by removing or labeling political commentary the state considered “misleading.” By securing this stipulation, ADF ensured that The Babylon Bee, Rumble, and other creators could continue posting satire and political speech without fear of penalties while the constitutional challenge played out.
The ruling highlights the importance of strict constitutional scrutiny when governments attempt to regulate speech. While combating misinformation is a legitimate concern, the First Amendment does not permit the state to decide what counts as “truthful” political expression.
By passing AB 2839, California became one of the few states in the nation to enact a law that effectively attempted prior restraint, limiting speech before any harm occurred. The court reaffirmed that such measures are incompatible with free expression in a democratic society.
“California Family Council is incredibly thankful for organizations like Alliance Defending Freedom that are willing to take these battles all the way to the Supreme Court,” said CFC President Greg Burt. “Their work is essential to protecting our freedom of speech and keeping California’s government in check.”
