While President Trump is moving the rest of the country in the direction of freedom and prosperity, California under its Governor Newsom is moving in the opposite direction.
The great state of California is in absolute terrible shape. Governor Newsom and his fellow radical communists in the legislature have passed an radical unconstitutional censorship bill.
HOLY CR*P The day Charlie Kirk was killed and everyone was focused on that, Gavin Newsom and California Democrats rammed through an online censorship bill
PENALTIES
– If you post something on social media anywhere online that the state of California deems to be hateful, there’s a penalty for that reckless violation, a civil penalty of up to $500,000.
– For an intentional, knowing or willful violation, a civil penalty of up to $1 million“SB 771, passing the Assembly on September 10th, 10 days ago. Then on September 16th, passing the Senate completely under our noses, which means right now, all that stands between complete statewide government censorship is Gavin Newsom’s signature”
“I exaggerating about how bad this bill is? No, I am not. Here is the actual bill. You can pull this up yourself on the state’s website.
The Bill’s called SB 771. It’s called Personal Rights Liability, Social Media Platforms.
In Section 2, Title 23 of the Bill, it defines the penalties for breaking this new California law
– If you post something on social media anywhere online that the state, the State of California deems to be hateful, there’s a penalty for that reckless violation, a civil penalty of up to $500,000
– For an intentional, knowing or willful violation, a civil penalty of up to $1 million.That is the definition of the state controlling speech, folks.
— What type of speech is California trying to police here? Well, let’s read from the Bill. It says, “This bill protects against online harassment, particularly when directed at historically marginalized groups.”
“the State of California’s actively passing UK style laws that will fine you for saying the wrong thing. Pretty wild. And this bill is completely done, folks. It’s passed in the House, it’s passed in the Senate. All that’s left is Gavin Newsom signing it into law”
This is all 100% true, he even clipped screenshots from the bill and put it into the video as proof
HOLY CR*P The day Charlie Kirk was killed and everyone was focused on that, Gavin Newsom and California Democrats rammed through an online censorship bill
PENALTIES
– If you post something on social media anywhere online that the state of California deems to be hateful,… pic.twitter.com/DekJ0PRFA6
— Wall Street Apes (@WallStreetApes) September 23, 2025
Doesn’t North Korea and China do this kind of stuff?
Doesn’t the Constitution of the United States prevent the “abridging of free speech” in the First Amendment?
Didn’t Charlie Kirk give his life in total support of free speech? Isn’t that the OPPOSITE of what many in the California legislature are doing here?
Doesn’t this oppose the wording of the Constitution?
What does this say about those who vote in favor of this in spite of what is stated in the Constitution? How can they take an oath to uphold the Constitution and pass this law?
(NOTE: Article 20, Section 3 in part states…
“Members of the Legislature, and all public officers and employees, executive, legislative, and judicial, except such inferior officers and employees as may be by law exempted, shall, before they enter upon the duties of their respective offices, take and subscribe the following oath or affirmation:
“I, ___________, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of California against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of California; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties upon which I am about to enter.)
https://californiaglobe.com/fr/california-oath-of-office/
Why do they call Trump a “dictator” when they are the people who ignore the U.S. Constitution and pass laws to oppress their own people?
Why do some legislative members in California fear what their voters may say to the point of punishing them in an obvious attempt to control them, and their speech?
Doesn’t North Korea and China do this kind of stuff?
Doesn’t the Constitution of the United States prevent the “abridging of free speech” in the First Amendment?
Didn’t Charlie Kirk give his life in total support of free speech? Isn’t that the OPPOSITE of what many in the California legislature are doing here?
Doesn’t this oppose the wording of the Constitution?
What does this say about those who vote in favor of this in spite of what is stated in the Constitution? How can they take an oath to uphold the Constitution and pass this law?
(NOTE: Article 20, Section 3 in part states…
“Members of the Legislature, and all public officers and employees, executive, legislative, and judicial, except such inferior officers and employees as may be by law exempted, shall, before they enter upon the duties of their respective offices, take and subscribe the following oath or affirmation:
“I, ___________, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of California against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of California; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties upon which I am about to enter.)
https://californiaglobe.com/fr/california-oath-of-office/
Why do they call Trump a “dictator” when they are the people who ignore the U.S. Constitution and pass laws to oppress their own people?
Why do some legislative members in California fear what their voters may say to the point of punishing them in an obvious attempt to control them, and their speech?