California
Officers who cover their faces could be charged with a misdemeanor under proposal
SAN FRANCISCO (AP) — Local, state, and federal law enforcement officers who cover their faces while conducting official business could face a misdemeanor charge in California under a new proposal announced Monday.
If approved, the bill would require all law enforcement officials to show their faces and be identifiable by their uniform, which should carry their name or other identifier. It would not apply to the National Guard or other troops and it would exempt SWAT teams and officers responding to natural disasters.
State Sen. Scott Wiener, a Democrat representing San Francisco, and State Sen. Jesse Arreguin, a Democrat representing Berkeley and Oakland, said the proposal seeks to boost transparency and public trust in law enforcement. It also looks to protect against people trying to impersonate law enforcement, they said.
“We are seeing more and more law enforcement officers, particularly at the federal level, covering their faces entirely, not identifying themselves at all and, at times, even wearing army fatigues where we can’t tell if these are law enforcement officers or a vigilante militia,” Wiener said.
“They are grabbing people off our streets and disappearing people, and it’s terrifying,” he added.
In Los Angeles, a series of immigration raids June 6 by federal officers, some with face coverings, triggered days of turbulent protests across the city and beyond and led President Donald Trump to deploy National Guard troops and Marines to the LA area. More than 100 people were detained during those raids and immigrant advocates say they have not been able to contact them.
The state senators said that in recent months, federal officers have conducted raids while covering their faces, and at times their badges and names, in Los Angeles, San Francisco, San Diego, Concord, Downey and Montebello.
“Law enforcement officers are public servants and people should be able to see their faces, see who they are, know who they are. Otherwise, there is no transparency and no accountability,” Wiener said.
Videos of raids showing masked officers using unmarked vehicles and grabbing people off the streets have circulated on social media in recent weeks.
Ed Obayashi, a special prosecutor in California and an expert on national and state police practices, said the proposed legislation would be tough to enforce because federal officers can’t be prosecuted by state courts for activities performed during their official duties.
“If they are following federal directives, they are following federal law,” Obayashi said.
He said that when it comes to local and state officers, they are already required by law to have identifiable information and department insignia on their uniforms.
Todd Lyons, ICE’s acting director, has defended his officers using facemasks, saying they wear them to protect themselves from death threats and online harassment.
“I’m sorry if people are offended by them wearing masks, but I’m not going to let my officers and agents go out there and put their lives on the line, their family on the line because people don’t like what immigration enforcement is,” he said at a news conference earlier this month in Boston to announce nearly 1,500 arrests in the region as part of a monthlong “surge operation.”
New York
Musk’s X sues over requirement to show how social media platforms handle problematic posts
NEW YORK (AP) — Elon Musk ‘s X sued Tuesday to try to stop New York from requiring reports on how social media platforms handle problematic posts — a regulatory approach that the company successfully challenged in California.
New York’s law, which Democratic Gov. Kathy Hochul signed late last year, is poised to take effect later this year. X maintains that the measure impinges on free speech rights and on a 1996 federal law that, among other things, lets internet platforms moderate posts as they see fit.
New York is improperly trying “to inject itself into the content-moderation editorial process” by requiring “politically charged disclosures” about it, Bastrop, Texas-based X Corp. argues in the suit.
“The state is impermissibly trying to generate public controversy about content moderation in a way that will pressure social media companies, such as X Corp., to restrict, limit, disfavor or censor certain constitutionally protected content on X that the state dislikes,” says the suit, filed in federal court in Manhattan.
New York Attorney General Letitia James’ office didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment on the case.
The law requires social media companies to report twice a year on whether and how they define hate speech, racist or extremist content, disinformation and some other terms. The platforms also have to detail their content moderation practices and data on the number of posts they flagged, the actions they took, the extent to which the offending material was seen or shared, and more.
Sponsors Sen. Brad Hoylman-Sigal and Assembly Member Grace Lee, both Democrats, have said the measure will make social media more transparent and companies more accountable.
The law applies broadly to social media companies. But X is among those that have faced intense scrutiny in recent years, and in a 2024 letter to an X lobbyist, the sponsors said the company and Musk in particular have a “disturbing record” that “threatens the foundations of our democracy.”
The lawmakers wrote before Musk became, for a time, a close adviser and chainsaw-wielding cost-cutter in Republican President Donald Trump’s administration. The two billionaires have since feuded and, perhaps, made up.
Since taking over the former Twitter in 2022, Musk, in the name of free speech, has dismantled the company’s Trust and Safety advisory group and stopped enforcing content moderation and hate speech rules that the site followed. He has restored the accounts of conspiracy theorists and incentivized engagement on the platform with payouts and content partnerships.
Outside groups have since documented a rise in hate speech and harassment on the platform. X sued a research organization that studies online hate speech – that lawsuit was dismissed last March.
The New York legislation took a page from a similar law that passed in California — and drew a similar lawsuit from X.
Last fall, a panel of federal appellate judges blocked portions of the California law, at least temporarily, on free speech grounds. The state subsequently settled, agreeing not to enforce the content-moderation reporting requirements.
Officers who cover their faces could be charged with a misdemeanor under proposal
SAN FRANCISCO (AP) — Local, state, and federal law enforcement officers who cover their faces while conducting official business could face a misdemeanor charge in California under a new proposal announced Monday.
If approved, the bill would require all law enforcement officials to show their faces and be identifiable by their uniform, which should carry their name or other identifier. It would not apply to the National Guard or other troops and it would exempt SWAT teams and officers responding to natural disasters.
State Sen. Scott Wiener, a Democrat representing San Francisco, and State Sen. Jesse Arreguin, a Democrat representing Berkeley and Oakland, said the proposal seeks to boost transparency and public trust in law enforcement. It also looks to protect against people trying to impersonate law enforcement, they said.
“We are seeing more and more law enforcement officers, particularly at the federal level, covering their faces entirely, not identifying themselves at all and, at times, even wearing army fatigues where we can’t tell if these are law enforcement officers or a vigilante militia,” Wiener said.
“They are grabbing people off our streets and disappearing people, and it’s terrifying,” he added.
In Los Angeles, a series of immigration raids June 6 by federal officers, some with face coverings, triggered days of turbulent protests across the city and beyond and led President Donald Trump to deploy National Guard troops and Marines to the LA area. More than 100 people were detained during those raids and immigrant advocates say they have not been able to contact them.
The state senators said that in recent months, federal officers have conducted raids while covering their faces, and at times their badges and names, in Los Angeles, San Francisco, San Diego, Concord, Downey and Montebello.
“Law enforcement officers are public servants and people should be able to see their faces, see who they are, know who they are. Otherwise, there is no transparency and no accountability,” Wiener said.
Videos of raids showing masked officers using unmarked vehicles and grabbing people off the streets have circulated on social media in recent weeks.
Ed Obayashi, a special prosecutor in California and an expert on national and state police practices, said the proposed legislation would be tough to enforce because federal officers can’t be prosecuted by state courts for activities performed during their official duties.
“If they are following federal directives, they are following federal law,” Obayashi said.
He said that when it comes to local and state officers, they are already required by law to have identifiable information and department insignia on their uniforms.
Todd Lyons, ICE’s acting director, has defended his officers using facemasks, saying they wear them to protect themselves from death threats and online harassment.
“I’m sorry if people are offended by them wearing masks, but I’m not going to let my officers and agents go out there and put their lives on the line, their family on the line because people don’t like what immigration enforcement is,” he said at a news conference earlier this month in Boston to announce nearly 1,500 arrests in the region as part of a monthlong “surge operation.”
New York
Musk’s X sues over requirement to show how social media platforms handle problematic posts
NEW YORK (AP) — Elon Musk ‘s X sued Tuesday to try to stop New York from requiring reports on how social media platforms handle problematic posts — a regulatory approach that the company successfully challenged in California.
New York’s law, which Democratic Gov. Kathy Hochul signed late last year, is poised to take effect later this year. X maintains that the measure impinges on free speech rights and on a 1996 federal law that, among other things, lets internet platforms moderate posts as they see fit.
New York is improperly trying “to inject itself into the content-moderation editorial process” by requiring “politically charged disclosures” about it, Bastrop, Texas-based X Corp. argues in the suit.
“The state is impermissibly trying to generate public controversy about content moderation in a way that will pressure social media companies, such as X Corp., to restrict, limit, disfavor or censor certain constitutionally protected content on X that the state dislikes,” says the suit, filed in federal court in Manhattan.
New York Attorney General Letitia James’ office didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment on the case.
The law requires social media companies to report twice a year on whether and how they define hate speech, racist or extremist content, disinformation and some other terms. The platforms also have to detail their content moderation practices and data on the number of posts they flagged, the actions they took, the extent to which the offending material was seen or shared, and more.
Sponsors Sen. Brad Hoylman-Sigal and Assembly Member Grace Lee, both Democrats, have said the measure will make social media more transparent and companies more accountable.
The law applies broadly to social media companies. But X is among those that have faced intense scrutiny in recent years, and in a 2024 letter to an X lobbyist, the sponsors said the company and Musk in particular have a “disturbing record” that “threatens the foundations of our democracy.”
The lawmakers wrote before Musk became, for a time, a close adviser and chainsaw-wielding cost-cutter in Republican President Donald Trump’s administration. The two billionaires have since feuded and, perhaps, made up.
Since taking over the former Twitter in 2022, Musk, in the name of free speech, has dismantled the company’s Trust and Safety advisory group and stopped enforcing content moderation and hate speech rules that the site followed. He has restored the accounts of conspiracy theorists and incentivized engagement on the platform with payouts and content partnerships.
Outside groups have since documented a rise in hate speech and harassment on the platform. X sued a research organization that studies online hate speech – that lawsuit was dismissed last March.
The New York legislation took a page from a similar law that passed in California — and drew a similar lawsuit from X.
Last fall, a panel of federal appellate judges blocked portions of the California law, at least temporarily, on free speech grounds. The state subsequently settled, agreeing not to enforce the content-moderation reporting requirements.
