Rumble Sues California Over Laws That Force Censorship

Rumble, the popular free-speech video platform, has filed a lawsuit against California, accusing the state of coercing the platform into censoring user content and adopting state-approved narratives. The suit, filed by Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) in a federal court in Sacramento, targets two controversial laws that critics argue violate First Amendment protections.

At the center of the controversy are Assembly Bills 2655 and 2839. These laws, touted by Governor Gavin Newsom as necessary measures to combat “election disinformation” and the misuse of deepfake technology, mandate social media platforms to restrict certain forms of political speech. According to Rumble and ADF, these measures not only force censorship but also require platforms to alter their own messaging to align with the state’s political agenda.

Key concerns highlighted in the lawsuit include:

• AB 2655, dubbed the “Defending Democracy from Deepfake Deception Act,” compels platforms like Rumble to police and suppress user-generated content that California deems misleading or harmful.

• AB 2839, the “Protecting Democracy Against Election Disinformation and Deepfakes” law, establishes vague standards that allow state officials to penalize political speech critical of elections or candidates.

ADF Senior Counsel Phil Sechler condemned the legislation as a blatant attack on free speech. “California’s war against political speech is censorship, plain and simple,” he said. Rumble CEO Chris Pavlovski echoed this sentiment, warning of the chilling implications of the government dictating what qualifies as permissible speech.

The origins of these laws raise further concerns. Newsom’s push for AB 2655 came after a parody video of Kamala Harris mocked the Democratic Party, prompting the governor to declare such content should be illegal. Similarly, the Biden administration labeled unflattering videos of the president as “cheap fakes,” fueling accusations that the laws are politically motivated.

Rumble argues that California’s mandates infringe on constitutionally protected rights by forcing platforms to remove content that could damage the reputation or electoral chances of political figures. Such laws, they say, weaponize government power to stifle dissent and enforce ideological conformity.

This isn’t the first time California’s censorship efforts have faced legal challenges. In September, ADF successfully represented the Babylon Bee, a satire website, in a similar case. The court ruled that AB 2839 likely violated the First Amendment, prompting California officials to retreat from enforcing the law against satirical content.

As Rumble takes a stand against these overreaching laws, its actions serve as a reminder that the fight for free speech is far from over. “Rumble is one of the few online voices stepping up against this trend of censorship while other platforms cave,” Sechler remarked.

In an era when political discourse is increasingly monitored and regulated, Rumble’s battle could set a critical precedent for the future of online speech.

Share this article or subscribe to our newsletter for updates on this and other key legal battles affecting your freedom.