California has stepped back from enforcing its contentious censorship law against The Babylon Bee and attorney-blogger Kelly Chang Rickert, following a federal court’s indication that the law likely oversteps First Amendment protections. This decision grants both parties the freedom to continue their sharp-edged political satire online during a pivotal election season—at least for now.
The case emerged from a lawsuit led by Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) attorneys challenging two California laws—AB 2839 and AB 2655—that set stringent rules on online political speech.
These laws, signed into action by Governor Gavin Newsom, aim to control a wide range of political commentary, including satire and have drawn fire for their ambiguous language, which opens the door for state interference in online discourse. The swift enactment of this legislation triggered emergency appeals from The Babylon Bee, Rickert, and other free speech advocates to put AB 2839 on hold. This law, which forbids “materially deceptive” content about California elections without disclaimers, carries severe consequences, including costly lawsuits.
Jonathan Scruggs, ADF’s Vice President, didn’t hold back his criticism, saying, “California’s war against political memes is censorship, plain and simple. We shouldn’t trust the government to decide what’s true in our online political debates.” He went on to lambaste the attempt to police humor, adding, “Gov. Newsom has no constitutional authority to act as the humor police.”
The legislation gained traction swiftly after Newsom publicly claimed a parody video of Vice President Kamala Harris “should be illegal.” California legislators responded with urgency, ushering these bills through to his desk. Newsom’s signing of the laws on September 17 stirred concern among free speech advocates who argue the state is silencing dissent by regulating which jokes are permissible.
“Our job is hard enough when our jokes keep coming true, as if they were prophecies,” said The Babylon Bee CEO Seth Dillon. “But it becomes significantly more difficult when self-serving politicians abuse their power to try to control public discourse and clamp down on comedy. Unfortunately for them, the First Amendment secures our right to tell jokes they don’t like.”
In their plea to the court, ADF attorneys contended that the law forces The Babylon Bee and Rickert into compliance with speech they fundamentally reject, stifling their right to freely express their opinions. The vague definitions within the law, they argued, could empower California officials to block content based on political bias.
Filed as The Babylon Bee v. Bonta, the lawsuit first went to the US District Court for the Central District of California before being transferred to the Eastern District. With a coalition of legal allies, including local attorneys David Shaneyfelt and Brian R. Chavez-Ochoa, the plaintiffs have amassed significant support in their battle to uphold the constitutional protections for political satire.
