[harpooniker]

How would it restrict speech?

[solardev]

I think it would have a chilling effect on social media providers who will have to think "how will our policies and practices look to California" (and other states with similar laws). If they have to report the changes every year, it basically strongly pressures a company to report that they are following whatever is politically correct at the moment. It's a slippery slope that approaches/enables prior restraint.

IMO only and IANAL.

[rgbrenner]

The law has no penalties for the policy you implement. So AB 587 isn't restraining any speech. If CA passes another law that uses the information to restrain speech, then that law may be unconstitutional. But AB 587 doesnt become unconstitutional by imagining all the ways it could be used unconstitutionally.

[kelseyfrog]

The reality is that not doing it is also a slippery slope with greater incline. Avoiding one slope jeopardizes another.

[harpooniker]

How would it show they are following what it politically correct?

For example if they ban a post for something that would be reflected but if they don't that's not shown