The court ruled on two related cases, Twitter v. Taamneh and Gonzalez v. Google, in which victims of terrorist attacks by the Islamic State sought to hold Twitter and Google liable because the companies “aided and abetted” the deadly terrorists by not sufficiently moderating their platforms.

This line of argument strikes at Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996. As First Amendment lawyer Robert Corn-Revere argued in a commentary for Reason Magazine, Section 230, “promoted the ​​development of parental controls and filtering as an alternative to government censorship, and encouraged online platforms to allow free communication by immunizing them from liability for hosting speech by third parties. Crucially, Section 230 also ensured online platforms’ ability to regulate posts that violate their terms of service.”

The liability protections for online platform operators is critical.

Can you imagine what the internet would be like today if a website could be held liable because a single user posted something offensive?

The challenges in the cases before the U.S. Supreme Court tried to argue that Twitter and Google were liable because terrorist propaganda could be accessible through their platforms.

In the Google case, the argument was made that Google, which owns video streaming site Youtube, was specifically liable because of the algorithmic video recommendation system on Youtube. This, they argued, could mean that terrorist recruitment videos could be recommended to someone using Youtube.

The court, however, rightly saw the flaw in these types of arguments.

“The mere creation of those platforms, however, is not culpable. To be sure, it might be that bad actors like ISIS are able to use platforms like defendants’ for illegal—and sometimes terrible—ends. But the same could be said of cell phones, email, or the internet generally,” wrote Justice Clarence Thomas.

Opined Cato Institute policy analyst Will Duffield, “In a world where the basic business models and default openness of major social media platforms has come under attack, this recognition is valuable in any context. Paired with the court’s decision to pass up an opportunity to reinterpret Section 230, it is a victory for free speech worth celebrating.”

Indeed.

Section 230 has been in the headlines over the years, mostly because it has been under attack by both the left and right. Both Donald Trump and Joe Biden have called for it to be repealed, with Trump going so far as to threaten to veto the annual defense budget bill if Section 230 repeal wasn’t included.

There’s little doubt much of the anger about Section 230 is a result of ignorance about what it does, what it doesn’t do and why it matters

The section has been scapegoated as somehow the culprit behind real or perceived bias on major internet platforms. But, of course, in a free country with a First Amendment, internet platform owners can be as biased as they want if they wish. That’s just free speech.

This said, it is for the best that the Supreme Court declined these recent challenges to internet freedom.

As law enforcement leaders, we know that these discriminatory practices betray fundamental values of policing, including courtesy, respect, and authentic service. They undermine public trust in policing as an institution, making us all less safe. Yet Antioch is not an outlier. 

And that is why it is critically important that California pass Senate Bill 50, a bill that will ban discriminatory traffic stops that fail to make California roads safer. If passed, officers will not be allowed to conduct certain stops that drive racial disparities, including pretext stops and stops for specific minor traffic offenses, such as having a brake light out or expired registrationtinted windows. Instead, tickets would be issued through license plate numbers when deemed necessary. Passing it is a critical first step to root out the racially discriminatory practices the Antioch texts so explicitly revealed, and make our roads safer.

After all, some officers stop drivers not because they are driving unsafely but to randomly search their car. Pretext stops, for example, are used by officers to justify pulling drivers over for traffic violations when they are actually motivated by a hunch or bias. Frequently, officers conduct these non-safety related traffic stops using things like a broken tail light as pretext, allowing officers to question the driver and try to obtain probable cause or consent to search the vehicle. This practice drives racial disparities; in San Francisco police were 10.5 times more likely to use a pretext stop to pull over Black drivers than white drivers. 

As a recent report by Center by Policing Equity shows, it is a dangerous and ineffective practice that not only fuels racial bias but also ensnares innocent drivers and diverts traffic enforcement resources away from effective public safety strategies.

In California, traffic stops are a key driver of racial disparities in both the likelihood of someone being stopped and the likelihood of a search and or use of force during that stop. A 2021 study uncovered another alarming pattern: During stops, officers spoke to Black men in a less respectful and less friendly tone than they did to white men. At the same time, officers do not find guns, drugs, or any evidence that a crime has been committed in an overwhelming majority of these pretext stops. Additionally, Black drivers are more likely to be subjected to intrusive searches, despite the fact that contraband discovery rates are higher among white drivers. These frightening and humiliating experiences poison the well of police-community trust that many of us in law enforcement have spent years trying to protect.

Rooting out the racism exposed by police officers’ texts in Antioch will not come easily, but we as law enforcement leaders can start by unequivocally condemning bigotry and taking concrete steps to protect the public from discrimination.

SB 50 offers an opportunity to build trust, conserve police resources, and enact policies and training that are based on empirical research. Moreover, it strikes a careful balance between the use of sound enforcement tools and respect for Californians’ constitutional and civil rights. 

Diane Goldstein is a 21-year veteran of law enforcement who served as the first female lieutenant for the Redondo Beach (CA) Police Department. She is the Executive Director of the Law Enforcement Action Partnership, a group of criminal justice professionals that work advancing justice and public safety solutions.

Chris Burbank was with the Salt Lake City Police Department for 25 years, spending nine years as Chief of Police. He served as Vice President of the Major Cities Chiefs, and President of the FBI National Executive Institute Associates. He is currently at the Center for Policing Equity.

By now, we have all heard stories like Coulson’s—example after example of California’s draconian sentencing laws. The legislature more recently abandoned the most severe excesses that made us the mass incarceration capital of the country, exacerbated disparities, drained taxpayer resources and failed to make us safer. However, the legacy remains in the form of thousands of people serving life (or virtual life) sentences for nonviolent crimes—like Coulson.  Thousands more are serving lengthy sentences under other excessive sentencing regimes—the vestiges of the failed tough on crime era of the 1990s.

Today, California has the second largest prison population in the United States—nearly 100,000 Californians are currently incarcerated in our overcrowded state prisons (at an average annual cost of $106,000 per incarcerated person).  California also leads the nation in life sentences with 32% of the incarcerated population serving life or virtual life sentences, though researchers have found that lengthy sentences and high rates of incarceration have diminishing returns in reducing crime rates. 

Today, almost half of the people in California prisons have already served at least 10 years of their sentence. According to data from the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR), 57% of all individuals in prison are rated “low risk” to reoffend.  88% of individuals in prison over 50 years old are “low risk,” and 95% of individuals that have served 20 or more years are “low risk.”  

Why do we keep spending so much to keep people in cages that pose a low risk to the rest of us? 

Recognizing both the significant cost and diminishing returns of excessively long sentences, the California Legislature has taken steps to safely and equitably release those whose continued incarceration is no longer in the interest of justice through “second look” resentencing.  Through this process, the court considers factors, including an incarcerated person’s age, physical and mental health, and conduct while in prison, to determine whether they would pose a risk to public safety if they were released and whether their continued incarceration is in the interest of justice.  Crime victims are also involved in the process and have the opportunity to provide their input. 

While the possibility of “second look” resentencing has existed in California law for decades, a series of recent bills has substantially improved the process and broadened its reach. New laws increase the number of authorities that can initiate resentencing to include the prosecuting attorney and provide additional funding to the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (“CDCR”) to make resentencing referrals and recommendations. 

These changes in the law reflect the data demonstrating that criminal involvement diminishes dramatically after age 40 (even more so after age 50), that lengthy sentences do not deter crime, and that crime victims overwhelmingly favor reducing sentencing lengths for people in prison who are assessed as a low risk to public safety.

Coulson’s release is the product of “second look” resentencing.  He was recommended for release by CDCR based on his exceptional conduct while in custody and in recognition of the substantial portion of his sentence which he had already served.  A Los Angeles Superior Court Judge did not hesitate to act on CDCR’s recommendation, but a gap in the law means the court could not have acted on their own motion to remedy a punishment which, the judge said, “shocks the conscience and offends fundamental notions of human dignity.”  The Legislature is poised to fix that.

As Assemblymember Ting told me, “While I have successfully championed resentencing efforts, I know there’s room for improvement. There are potentially many more Californians like Mr. Coulson, whose extremely long sentences are unjustly harsh and deserve a ‘second look.’ My bill makes technical and procedural changes to current law to achieve fairness and equity in the application of such reviews – goals worth aiming for.”

Cristine DeBerry is the founder and executive director of the Prosecutors Alliance of California. 

Back in February, members of the California Association of Professional Scientists — a union that represents scientists in the state’s myriad regulatory agencies — overwhelmingly rejected Gov. Gavin Newsom’s offer to boost pay by 2% to 4%. The union says their pay, which averages $7,400 a month plus generous benefits, lags state engineers and federal scientists by 40%.

Had the union been reasonable, negotiations might have been fruitful. The union demanded raises of up to 43% to address the so-called disparities. It has been in the midst of a three-year bargaining dispute. As the Sacramento Bee reports, the union has been calling for dramatic pay increases since a 2005 contract increased engineer salaries. Rank-and-file scientists are still seething over a 2014 court case that boosted pay for supervisors, but not scientists.

Now, the Legislature is intervening.

Last week, the Assembly Appropriations Committee approved Assembly Bill 1677, which directs the union-friendly UC Berkeley Labor Center to study this particular bargaining unit’s salary structure.

At some point, the union might want to cut its losses and accept a deal.

This isn’t exactly the best time to be pushing for 435 raises given that California is facing a $31.5-billion budget deficit. California state employees, including its scientists, perform some important tasks but they earn enviable pay and benefits packages.

This one relatively small labor dispute speaks volumes about Capitol politics and the way one bargaining unit’s pay creates an upward ratchet for other bargaining units.

Unions don’t always win, but it’s time for the state to base all of its pay levels more on market conditions and less on union power.

Nigel Ng, who plays a character named Uncle Roger, is the latest comedian to feel the consequences of jokes that could be perceived as reflecting negatively on China under increasingly intense censorship and rising nationalism.

Last week, a Chinese comedian came under police investigation for a joke about stray dogs.

Ng posted a video clip last Thursday from an upcoming comedy special in which he pokes fun at Chinese surveillance and Beijing’s claims of sovereignty over Taiwan.

The video shows Ng interacting with someone in the audience who said he is from Guangzhou, a metropolis in China’s south.

“Good country, good country, we have to say that now, correct?” Ng says. “All the phones listening.”

Ng then jokes with members of the audience who said they’re from Taiwan, a self-governed island claimed by China, saying Taiwan is not a real country. “I hope one day you rejoin the motherland. One China,” he said.

His Weibo account said on Monday that he was banned from posting for “violating relevant laws and regulations.” Ng’s agency did not respond to a request for comment.

A Chinese comedian, meanwhile, could face jail time as police and government departments investigate him for a joke he made at a performance earlier in May.

Beijing police announced last Wednesday that they were investigating comedian Li Haoshi “for severely insulting” the People’s Liberation Army.

The comedian, who goes by the stage name HOUSE, made a joke about stray dogs by riffing on a well-known propaganda slogan used to describe the Chinese military.

Usually, he said, dogs are cute and melt your heart, but when he sees his two dogs, he thinks of the Chinese phrase, “Able to win battles, with first-rate style.”

The phrase was first used 10 years ago by Chinese leader Xi Jinping to describe planned reforms for the Chinese military, according to the China Media Project, which studies Chinese media.

A government department known as Beijing’s Comprehensive Team of Law Enforcement on Cultural Market said in a statement last week it had received tips from the public about Li’s performance on May 13 and in response launched an investigation into the company Li is signed with.

The law enforcement team said it would fine the company, Xiao Guo Wenhua, about $2 million (13.3 million yuan). The company did not respond to a request for comment.

An officer who did not give his name at Beijing’s police headquarters declined to say whether Li was under detention or arrest, saying the investigation was continuing and the results would be publicized accordingly.

___

Associated Press reporter Kanis Leung in Hong Kong contributed to this report.

Spurred by the local group Compassionate Pomona in response to continued increases in violent acts and hate crimes toward minorities, the resolution reaffirms the city’s “commitment to compassion, equitable treatment and the condemnation of hate, racism and other acts of violence toward minorities,” according to a staff report prepared for the City Council.

The decision this month to publicly denounce such acts comes two years after Pomona councilmembers adopted a similar resolution condemning violence against Asian American and Pacific Islander communities and hate and xenophobia against all persons.

Included in the latest resolution is the acknowledgment that while Pomona is not immune to untoward incidents, “the Pomona City Council wishes to promote an atmosphere of acceptance, tolerance, compassion, and mutual respect in the community.”

Pomona follows nearby Claremont in sending such a message, the latter doing so in February after flyers targeting the Jewish community were circulated around town.

A few months earlier, the Los Angeles County Commission on Human Relations reported a 23% increase in hate crimes in 2021 over the previous year, the highest number of such acts in 19 years.

• 

  Two sailors chat in the Expo area on Sunday, May 29, 2022, at LA Fleet Week in San Pedro. (Photo by Howard Freshman, Contributing Photographer)

• 

  Visitors pose with Marines on Sunday, May 29, 2022, in the Expo area on the third day of LA Fleet Week in San Pedro. (Photo by Howard Freshman, Contributing Photographer).

• 

  Ayden Zhang, 9, of Glendora, and his 7-year-old brother, Austin, play atop a Marine reconnaissance vehicle on Sunday, May 29, 2022, at LA Fleet Week in San Pedro. (Photo by Howard Freshman, Contributing Photographer)

• 

  Visitors walk through the Expo on Sunday, May 29, 2022, the third day of LA Fleet Week in San Pedro. (Photo by Howard Freshman, Contributing Photographer)

• 

  San Pedro City Ballet’s Mia Canosa-Carr performs a solo to “I’ve Got Rhythm” on Sunday, May 29, 2022, at LA Fleet Week in San Pedro. (Photo by Howard Freshman, Contributing Photographer)

• 

  Members of the San Pedro City Ballet perform on the expo’s main stage on Sunday, May 29, 2022, the third day of LA Fleet Week in San Pedro. (Photo by Howard Freshman, Contributing Photographer)

• 

  A Los Angeles Fire Department Agusta AW-139 helicopter performs a demonstration on Saturday, May 28, 2022, over the USS Iowa at LA Fleet Week in San Pedro. (Photo by Howard Freshman, Contributing Photographer)

• 

  A chance to interact with military personnel, vehicles and equipment drew big crowds to the expo area on Saturday, May 28, 2022, at LA Fleet Week in San Pedro. (Photo by Howard Freshman, Contributing Photographer)

• 

  AJ Lark of Oceanside sits inside a UH-60 Lime, Blackhawk on Friday, May 27, 2022, the first day of this year’s LA Fleet Week in San Pedro. (Photo by Howard Freshman, Contributing Photographer)

• 

  Visitors tour the USS Iowa on Friday, May 27, 2022, the first day of LA Fleet Week in San Pedro. (Photo by Howard Freshman, Contributing Photographer)

• 

  Representatives of the Naval History and Heritage Command greet visitors in the expo area on Friday, May 27, 2022, the first day of this year’s LA Fleet Week in San Pedro. (Photo by Howard Freshman, Contributing Photographer)

• 

  Marines man an amphibious combat vehicle in the expo area on Friday, May 27, 2022, the first day of this year’s LA Fleet Week in San Pedro. (Photo by Howard Freshman, Contributing Photographer)

• 

  A Navy diver inside a tank interacts with youngsters in the expo area on Friday, May 27, 2022, the first day of this year’s LA Fleet Week in San Pedro. (Photo by Howard Freshman, Contributing Photographer)

LA Fleet Week will return to San Pedro this Memorial Day weekend, with sailors, aerial flyovers, live entertainment — and the always-popular free public tours of active-duty U.S. Navy and Coast Guard ships.

Featuring what’s billed as a “massive public expo along the LA Waterfront,” the annual four-day celebration is free and honors the nation’s Sea Services, with activities running from Friday to Monday, May 26-29. The main expo venue, which will be open from 10 a.m. to 6 p.m. daily, will be set up alongside the Battleship USS Iowa, at 250 S. Harbor Blvd., near First Street in San Pedro, just south of the Vincent Thomas Bridge.

This year, there will also be events planned throughout the Los Angeles region: a Hollywood “neighborhood activation” event will take place on Wednesday, May 24, and service members will visit several communities throughout the region, including downtown L.A. on Thursday, May 25; Brea on Friday, May 26; and Venice on Saturday, May 27. Those events will feature free band concerts, service projects and other activities.

LA Fleet Week, which officials say is the largest Memorial Day weekend event in Southern California, will feature family-friendly festivities, including live music and entertainment, ship tours, aircraft flyovers and exhibits from the Navy, Marine Corps, Coast Guard and Army.

“There’s no better place than the Los Angeles area to recognize the importance of our nation’s Sea Services,” Jonathan Williams, president and CEO of the Battleship Iowa Museum and the National Museum of the Surface Navy, said in a Fleet Week news release. “We are a maritime nation and Fleet Week gives us the opportunity to salute all of those who ensure the freedom of the seas.”

Military branches will again compete in Dodgeball (10:30 a.m. Saturday) and Galley Wars (noon Sunday).

An outdoor “Welcome Home” concert for members of the military, featuring Ambrosia, will take place from 6:30 to 8 p.m. Saturday at the Cabrillo Beach Yacht Club, 211 W. 22nd St.

The concert space is limited, though, and those attending need to have official passes or active duty military identification for entry. Additional public viewing areas, however, will be available along the waterfront promenade and 22nd Street as space allows.

Ambrosia, a five-time Grammy Award nominee with roots in the South Bay — and, specifically, San Pedro — will perform some of its classic hits, including “Biggest Part of Me,” “Baby Come Back” and “How Much I Feel.”

This is the second year LA Fleet Week is being held over Memorial Day weekend.

The event first launched in 2016 as a Labor Day weekend festivity. It moved to Memorial Day weekend last year to take advantage of the cooler weather. And those cooler temperatures appear to be on tap this year, with forecasts predicting temperatures in the 60s.

Memorial Day also coincides with what was already one of the largest annual holiday events held on the Iowa since the historic World War II battleship’s June 2012 arrival in San Pedro as a floating museum.

Visiting ships are expected to be announced early this week. The tours on board those ships are free and on a first-come, first-serve basis. Once again, the ships will be anchored in San Pedro’s Outer Harbor; trolly service will be the only way visitors can access the site.

This year’s event kicks off a day early, with a preview welcome party in downtown San Pedro from 5 to 9 p.m. Thursday, featuring music, food and drinks to welcome visiting sailors and other service members. That event will take place on Sixth Street, between Mesa and Centre streets.

Included in the festivities will be a beer and wine garden, dessert food trucks, live music, swing dancers and a free photo booth. The U.S. Navy Band, will perform, as will Midlife Crisis, a nostalgia band that will finish the evening with favorites from the 1980s, 1990s and 2000s.

A Wilmington welcome party is also planned from 5 to 10 p.m . Friday at the Banning Residence Museum in Banning Park, 401 E. M St.

When the event officially opens on Friday, visitors will find military displays, multiple veteran and military information booths, and other family activities at the expo site, along with many local restaurants offering specials throughout the nearby historic downtown San Pedro district.

Visitors are urged to arrive early in the day; parking will be available in and around downtown San Pedro within walking distance of the expo.

Sunset cruises will also be available on the Los Angeles Maritime Institute’s Tall Ships, docked at the Downtown Harbor — off of Harbor Boulevard at Sixth Street. And the Los Angeles Maritime Museum next door to that will also be open so folks can learn more about the harbor’s history.

The U.S. Navy holds Fleet Week events at ports throughout the United States, with Los Angeles’s event coinciding with New York’s on Memorial Day weekend. The events offer residents a chance to tour active-duty ships, talk with sailors and learn more about the Navy.

Due to security and traffic constraints, vehicles will not be permitted to travel past 22nd Street and pedestrians will not be admitted into the ship tour area. They must be brought by shuttle from the expo area.

More information, including daily highlights and more detailed schedules, can be viewed at lafleetweek.com.

This paper had one of the best looks back on his career that I’ve seen, focusing not only on his work with the Bruins but also his radio career beginning in Victorville, as well as his stops in San Bernardino where he worked with Jhani Kaye among others … I mention Kaye because the two would work together again from 1981 to 1992 at KFI (640 AM) and KOST (103.5 FM) when Kaye was the program director of the stations.

During the KFI/KOST days, Roberts eventually became sports director, but it didn’t start that way, exactly. He was actually first working the overnight shift on KOST, and would prepare a sports report for the KFI morning show. You may remember the tagline that every sportscast ended with: “Chris Roberts, Athletic Briefs.”

I first heard of Roberts’ death from a Facebook post by Kaye. “My best friend in broadcasting, Chris Roberts, passed away this morning,” Kaye wrote. “He was my pal. I admired him for the way he rose to become one of the most respected voices of UCLA sports broadcasters.”

I have never heard an unkind word about Roberts; this is a huge loss to both the radio industry and the sports world.

Likes and Dislikes

It actually started as a response to a column by InsideMusicMedia.Com’s Jerry Del Colliano, who wrote of Top Listener Gripes on April 28th. I still haven’t written about his gripes because I wanted to hear of yours first. But I also wanted to know what you love about radio as well. Here’s what you think, positive and negative, in no particular order … Jerry can wait.

“I listen to Mottek On Money from KABC.com as a podcast. I don’t know if this would fall under your question, but they interject commercial ads mid-sentence during the podcast. I find this very annoying … I don’t know if this is a Mottek or Cumulus thing.  No other podcasts I listen to does this mid-sentence advertising. — Steve Lui

“The morning DJs turn me off. It’s the same format almost everywhere you turn. I like some introductions but not the stupid banter now. But, I am not in their market group being 58 as of a short time ago.” — Erik Hassold

(Program note: Happy birthday!)

“I hate the annoying, ‘This has been previously recorded’ preamble before an ad for a radio show, as if the general listener isn’t smart enough to realize it’s an ad. I’m sure it’s an FCC thing, but annoying nonetheless.” — Cody Lyons

“The playlists are all the same songs OVER AND OVER AND OVER. There’s no creativity or imagination. And it doesn’t matter if the station is ‘alt’ or ‘oldies’ … it’s all the same stuff. It’s actually dumb that 98.7 and 106.7 categorize themselves as alternative. Those stations don’t know what that means anymore. What do I enjoy? Klein and Ally in the morning on KROQ, a very talented and underrated show that deserves more listeners. I was a huge Kevin and Bean fan for years and this show is different, but equally as entertaining.”  — Marc Levine

“BAD: Same songs over and over. OK, so your research says it’s best to stick to the superstars – I get it. But Journey, Elton John, Rolling Stones, Heart etc. have more than a half dozen hits in their catalog.  By just doubling the number of songs played by the popular artists the stations would increase their interest from me.

“If you’re a political-leaning talk show, fine. If you’re not, please don’t say anything political. I have even heard political issues discussed on local 88.5 fm – disguised as songwriting information from local artists.

“GOOD: Variety. Stations can stick to their format and still have more variety. Like my point above, include more songs from the favored artists. Include more artists, and that doesn’t mean they have to gamble with ‘lesser’ names – there are enough established artists in each category to expand. And what about including some live tracks of the hits? I love when stations do that.

“Disc jockeys. There’s a place for music-only stations with no DJs, but a few more DJ-led stations would provide more personal connection to us listeners.  And it doesn’t have to include long comedy segments or listener calls – just some connection.

“Don’t know how to title this: DJ emotions. This might seem hokey. These days it seems like most DJs and their interaction with listeners is either distant or factual. In my day, I’m your age, they seemed a lot more emotional, you know, like, Hey, it’s Friday school’s out – party time (cut directly to party anthem song) – or “hump day.” Contrived? Maybe … maybe not. But they and the music helped steer our emotions, usually for the better. They talked to us and with us and took our thoughts away from everyday life. I don’t think life’s just a party, but I think radio – like sports, entertainment, the movies – are to help us temporarily escape from things like work and other responsibilities. — Darren

To be continued …

Richard Wagoner is a San Pedro freelance columnist covering radio in Southern California. Email rwagoner@socalradiowaves.com.

The European Union slapped Meta with a record $1.3 billion privacy fine Monday and ordered it to stop transferring users personal information across the Atlantic by October, the latest salvo in a decadelong case sparked by U.S. cybersnooping fears.

The penalty of 1.2 billion euros is the biggest since the EU’s strict data privacy regime took effect five years ago, surpassing Amazon’s 746 million euro fine in 2021 for data protection violations.

Meta, which had previously warned that services for its users in Europe could be cut off, vowed to appeal and ask courts to immediately put the decision on hold.

The company said “there is no immediate disruption to Facebook in Europe.” The decision applies to user data like names, email and IP addresses, messages, viewing history, geolocation data and other information that Meta — and other tech giants like Google — use for targeted online ads.

“This decision is flawed, unjustified and sets a dangerous precedent for the countless other companies transferring data between the EU and U.S.,” Nick Clegg, Meta’s president of global affairs, and chief legal officer Jennifer Newstead said in a statement.

It’s yet another twist in a legal battle that began in 2013 when Austrian lawyer and privacy activist Max Schrems filed a complaint about Facebook’s handling of his data following former National Security Agency contractor Edward Snowden’s revelations of electronic surveillance by U.S. security agencies. That included the disclosure that Facebook gave the agencies access to the personal data of Europeans.

The saga has highlighted the clash between Washington and Brussels over the differences between Europe’s strict view on data privacy and the comparatively lax regime in the U.S., which lacks a federal privacy law. The EU has been a global leader in reining in the power of Big Tech with a series of regulations forcing them police their platforms more strictly and protect users’ personal information.

An agreement covering EU-U.S. data transfers known as the Privacy Shield was struck down in 2020 by the EU’s top court, which said it didn’t do enough to protect residents from the U.S. government’s electronic prying. Monday’s decision confirmed that another tool to govern data transfers — stock legal contracts — was also invalid.

Brussels and Washington signed a deal last year on a reworked Privacy Shield that Meta could use, but the pact is awaiting a decision from European officials on whether it adequately protects data privacy.

EU institutions have been reviewing the agreement, and the bloc’s lawmakers this month called for improvements, saying the safeguards aren’t strong enough.

The Ireland’s Data Protection Commission handed down the fine as Meta’s lead privacy regulator in the 27-nation bloc because the Silicon Valley tech giant’s European headquarters is based in Dublin.

The Irish watchdog said it gave Meta five months to stop sending European user data to the U.S. and six months to bring its data operations into compliance “by ceasing the unlawful processing, including storage, in the U.S.” of European users’ personal data transferred in violation of the bloc’s privacy rules.

If the new transatlantic privacy agreement takes effect before these deadlines, “our services can continue as they do today without any disruption or impact on users,” Meta said.

“Meta plans to rely on the new deal for transfers going forward, but this is likely not a permanent fix,” Schrems said in a statement. “Unless U.S. surveillance laws gets fixed, Meta will likely have to keep EU data in the EU.”

Meta warned in its latest earnings report that without a legal basis for data transfers, it will be forced to stop offering its products and services in Europe, “which would materially and adversely affect our business, financial condition, and results of operations.”

The social media company might have to carry out a costly and complex revamp of its operations if it’s forced to stop shipping user data across the Atlantic. Meta has a fleet of 21 data centers, according to its website, but 17 of them are in the United States. Three others are in the European nations of Denmark, Ireland and Sweden. Another is in Singapore.

Other social media giants are facing pressure over their data practices. TikTok has tried to soothe Western fears about the Chinese-owned short video sharing app’s potential cybersecurity risks with a $1.5 billion project to store U.S. user data on Oracle servers.

It’s the ever-increasing conflict between the state government’s current and projected tax revenues, which are drifting downwards, and the demands for billions of additional dollars for vital services, such as health care, homelessness and mass transit.

In January, when Gov. Gavin Newsom unveiled his initial budget for the 2023-24 fiscal year that begins July 1, he projected a $22.5 billion deficit – just a few months after boasting the state had a $97 billion surplus. This month, in a revised budget, he said the deficit had grown to $31.5 billion.

As worrisome as those numbers appear, they might be a best case scenario, according to the Legislature’s budget analyst, Gabe Petek.

“Based on our assessment, there is a roughly two‑thirds chance revenues will come in below May Revision estimates,” Petek said. “As such, while we consider the May revision revenues plausible, adopting them would present considerable downside risk.”

Moreover, Petek said that using the Newsom administration’s own projections and assumptions, “the budget condition would worsen in future years” with annual operating deficits of around $15 billion in the following two years, and hinted that the real shortfalls in the final years of Newsom’s governorship could be larger.

These estimates of a chronic and perhaps widening gap between income and outgo also assume that the state’s economy won’t be clobbered by recession.

Many economists believe that the Federal Reserve System’s increasing interest rates, meant to slow the economy and battle inflation, could trigger a recession within the next year. If it occurred, Newsom’s budget says, “revenues could decrease by $40 billion in 2023-24 alone, largely driven by losses in personal income tax,” adding that “revenue declines relative to the May Revision forecast could reach an additional $100 billion through 2026-27.”

While the state has amassed more than $30 billion in reserves to cushion the impact of recession, an even moderate economic downturn would quickly consume them, drowning the budget in red ink as the Great Recession did.

To summarize: California’s budget faces several years, at least, of budget difficulty. But the demand side of the fiscal ledger is not shrinking.

After the January budget was released, advocates for programs, particularly health care and social services, cranked up pressure on legislators to protect their slices of the pie. That pressure is even more intense with the May revision’s deficit increase.

They have been joined by three other major stakeholders seeking multi-billion-dollar increases in state aid: hospitals, transit systems and cities on the front lines of the state’s worst-in-the-nation homelessness crisis.

Hospital and transit system officials say they have been unable to fully recover from the impacts of COVD-19 on their patronage and finances and may be forced to shut down or at least reduce services. Mayors of the state’s largest cities say they need an additional $2 billion per year to maintain ongoing efforts to house those on the streets.

There’s little question that advocates for existing and new state financing would prefer that Newsom and the Legislature tap into reserves and/or raise taxes to satisfy their demands. In fact, the state Senate’s budget framework proposes a hike in corporate income taxes, although Newsom has rejected it.

Were California’s budget squeeze to continue or grow tighter, as seems likely, the remainder of Newsom’s governorship would be dominated by the difficult task of resolving it.

CalMatters is a public interest journalism venture committed to explaining how California’s state Capitol works and why it matters. For more stories by Dan Walters, go to Commentary.