Court rules Hawaii’s attempt to censor satire violates 1st Amendment

A federal court in Hawaii has ruled that a state attempt to impose its political bias by censoring satire and parody it didn’t like violates the First Amendment and the law cannot ever be enforced.

The fight was brought by The Babylon Bee satire publication and others against the state’s law that banned the distribution of “materially deceptive media” that can portray politicians in ways that risk harming “the reputation or electoral prospects of a candidate.”

The court ruling said, “Upon review of the record in conjunction with the relevant legal authorities, the court finds that Act 191 discriminates based on content and speaker and, in doing so, restricts constitutionally protected political speech, making Act 191 presumptively invalid and subject to strict scrutiny.”

The opinion continued, “The First Amendment, applicable to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment, prohibits laws that abridge the freedom of speech.”

It said, “Accordingly, a government cannot ‘restrict expression because of its message, its ideas, its subject matter, or its content.'”

“For centuries, humor and satire have served as an important vehicle to deliver truth with a smile, and this kind of speech receives the utmost protection under the Constitution,” explained Mathew Hoffman, a lawyer for ADF, which handled the case.

“The court is right to put a stop to Hawaii’s war against political memes and satire. The First Amendment doesn’t allow Hawaii to choose what political speech is acceptable and censor speech in the name of ‘misinformation.’ That censorship is both undemocratic and unnecessary.”

The Bee is noted for its satire and parody, attracting a huge audience with its daily pokes and prods at self-satisfied politicians and their kind.

“This decision marks yet another victory for the First Amendment and for anyone who values the right to speak freely on political matters without government interference,” said The Babylon Bee CEO Seth Dillon.

It was Gov. Josh Green that signed the speech violation into law in 2024. It called for jail time, large fines and lawsuits for those who spoke what the state disliked.

“Political speech, of course, is at the core of what the First Amendment is designed to protect,” the court wrote. “Rather than require actual harm, [S2687] imposes a risk assessment based solely on the value judgments and biases of the enforcement agency—which could conceivably lead to discretionary and targeted enforcement that discriminates based on viewpoint.”

Lawyers for the Bee won a similar fight in California, where a court there permanently halted that state from enforcing its censorship scheme.