A proposal aimed at restricting the distribution of “hate material” targeting race, religion, or sexual orientation on private properties has passed in both the California Senate and Assembly. Governor Newsom is expected to sign or veto the proposal by the end of next month.
The AB3024 proposal, designed to expand civil rights, was initiated by Democratic Assemblymember Christopher Ward from the 78th District. It passed unanimously in the Senate with a vote of 31-0 (9 absent) and in the Assembly with a vote of 61-2 (16 absent) on August 31.
According to Ward, the dissemination of hate-filled flyers, posters, or symbols in a community has become an increasingly concerning issue. Hate groups operate covertly and are increasingly utilizing these tactics to maximize their impact.
In response, Ward, along with San Diego City Councilmember Raul Campillo, Mayor Todd Gloria, and City Attorney Mara Elliott, jointly introduced the AB3024 “Stop Hate Littering Act”. This act creates new tools for law enforcement to hold offenders accountable.
Ward stated, “These acts of antisemitism, anti-LGBTQ sentiments, and other hate messages left on our windshields, driveways, and front doors have seen a staggering increase in recent years.” He further added that this “hate litter” targets individuals or groups based on religion, gender, sexual orientation, or other attributes, and the bill sends a clear message to distributors that their tactics will not divide us, and they will be held accountable for their actions.
Under AB3204, residents will be able to seek civil remedies against individuals spreading such “hate materials”. It broadens the scope of the 1976 Ralph Act by defining “threat” as unauthorized distribution of “hate materials” on private properties and “intimidation” as causing a person with normal sensibilities to fear for their personal safety.
While prohibiting the dissemination of hate materials targeting individuals or groups on others’ properties is essentially a restriction on speech, protected under the First Amendment of the US Constitution which prohibits government restriction on speech, the ban does not apply to private properties.
In 2022, California Attorney General Rob Bonta released the “California Hate Crime Annual Report”, showing a 20% increase in hate crime incidents during the 2021-2022 pandemic period.
“Due to the ambiguity of the law, prosecuting the act of hate littering has been challenging. This proposal will serve as a tool to protect our rights,” stated prosecutor Elliott. “The 360% increase in anti-Semitic incidents should concern all of us. We all have the right to live in an environment free of fear and intimidation.”
The ACLU California Action and the First Amendment Coalition oppose the proposal. They argue that if there is a “true threat”, it is not protected under the First Amendment. However, to punish those who genuinely pose a threat, the government must prove their actions constitute a “direct unlawful violent threat” to a specific individual.
Opponents also express concerns that AB3204 imposes excessive civil penalties for expressing materials that differ from or unsettle a homeowner, even though these materials are not specifically intended to cause bodily harm or threats of death. While they appreciate the intention of the proponents to address so-called “hate propaganda”, they also worry about the foreseeable consequences of excessive civil penalties for speech and applying criminal definitions from the California Penal Code to civil law.