California state senator introduces bill to force websites to use ‘fact-checkers’

Sen. Richard Pan, D-Sacramento, wants state to decide what is real or fake news, introduces “Online False Information Act,” which would require anyone who posts any news on the Internet to verify all information

Sen. Richard Pan (D-Sacramento) (image from Canada Free Press)

Sen. Richard Pan (D-Sacramento) is the author of the “Online False Information Act,” a new bill that would require anyone who posts any news on the Internet to verify all information through “fact-checkers.” Sen. Pan does not name who these “fact checkers” are.

The bill will “require any person who operates a social media, as defined, Internet Web site with a physical presence in California to develop a strategic plan to verify news stories shared on its Web site. The goal of Senate Bill 1424 is “to mitigate the spread of false information through news stories, the utilization of fact-checkers to verify news stories, providing outreach to social media users, and placing a warning on a news story containing false information.”

Pan’s Senate colleague, Sen. Hannah Beth Jackson (D-Santa Barbara), has authored Senate Bill 947 to authorize California’s schools to teach kids how to spot “fake news.”

Full story at Canada Free Press.

Comments

comments

To add a comment, click on Facebook, Twitter, Google+ icons OR go further down to the bottom of comments to the Post your comment box.

Comments

  1. Anonymous says:

    When will politicians propose a law that everything anyone campaigning for elected office or holding elected office says has to be fact-checked before they say it? That way politicians won’t tell lies or half-truths.

    California politicians are so out of touch.

    • Tom Byrne says:

      You beat me to it! I was going to suggest that legislators pay a fine if it is determined they lied on the floor. Call it the “whopper jar”, and it goes to reduce pension liabilities.

  2. drewelow says:

    i suspect that he has been working on this with silicon valley people who will launch a platform that they have been preparing for years. ‘fact checker’ is the perfect orwellian word for ‘censor’. some facts will have to be ‘checked’, as in ‘the spread of the flu was checked with the introduction of novel antibiotics’.

    • drewelow says:

      google ‘fact-checking technology’ or ‘automated fact checking’ and you’ll see that the technology is well under way.

  3. Steve Seitz says:

    The article states: “The goal . . . is ‘to mitigate the spread of false information . . . and placing a warning on a news story containing false information.’”

    By this standard, nearly every newspaper in the country would need to carry a warning about false information.

    • Anonymous says:

      Or they will not print it which is the purpose.

      • Steve Seitz says:

        Anonymous,
        Your point is well taken. My subtle point is that the news media, itself, has a systemic problem with reporting the full truth (i.e. fake news). Therefore, If their biased news is considered the datum for all news, we have a form of censorship.

        • Anonymous says:

          News is not accurate. A study asked people who were actually involved in news making event how accurate the news story was and the accuracy rate was low.
          Often times even with things in quotations the person quoted will say either that they did not say it or that it was taken out of context to distort the meaning of it.
          I did a face palm here not too long ago when a comment said that President Trump had called Mexican Americans rapists.
          It is worse now that the media has such strong biases. There used to be some pride in being objective.

  4. Steve Seitz says:

    This proposed law could be a field day for conservatives.

    So let me get this straight: Every time a news source in social media talks about a person who changed sexes, a warning would have to be posted indicating that this is fake news.

  5. drewelow says:

    it will naturally spread to all communication that crosses the
    internet. it will be built into blogsite platforms and probably block entries before they go up, like comments on cal cath daily. sites that now have censor tech do not let you know what you said that was wrong, but merely state that ‘your comment was unable to be posted’ etc. an exceptions review wil be possible when, for example, someone cites a line from the star-spangled banner that would be deemed too violent. don’t expect the review mechanism to be speedy or contestable.

  6. Who fact checks the fact-checkers?
    Who oversees the overseers?
    The liberal nanny state wants to increase its reach and power.
    There was a time when people could make up their own minds about what they read and said and printed.
    I think this proposed law would violate the 1st Amendment: Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech or of the press. But we all know that liberals don’t care about the Constitution.

  7. Please feel free to fact-check this statement: Pan is an idiot.

  8. Fine…bring it on baby…the progressive narrative is so bound in hubris they can’t even comprehend the idea that the policies they mean to hamstring those that disagree with them are the same policies that they can be hung with. Saying they look like a bunch of 7th graders is an insult to 7th graders everywhere. But they look like a bunch of 7th graders.

COMMENTS POLICY: Comments are limited to 750 characters and will be truncated at 750. Comments should not contain offensive or libelous language. Please strive to be civil. All comments are subject to approval by our moderator and to editing as the moderator deems appropriate. Inclusion of your email address is optional.

Speak Your Mind

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

COMMENTS POLICY: Comments are limited to 750 characters and will be truncated at 750. Comments should not contain offensive or libelous language. Please strive to be civil. All comments are subject to approval by our moderator and to editing as the moderator deems appropriate. Inclusion of your email address is optional.