By Bo Tefu, California Black Media

Word Count: 391

Gov. Gavin Newsom has signed a new California law targeting addictive social media features that can keep children scrolling, giving the state new authority to restrict how platforms engage young users.

AB 1709, authored by Assemblymember Josh Lowenthal (D-Long Beach) prohibits social media companies from giving children under 16 access to personalized feeds, including “For You” pages, as well as other features designed to maximize screen time, such as infinite scrolling and video autoplay.

The law does not prevent children under 16 from using social media. Instead, platforms must deactivate the covered features for those users.

“This is about actually addressing the problem, the scrolling, the algorithms,” Newsom said Sept. 10 during a bill-signing event in the San Francisco Bay Area.

Newsom said California’s approach focuses on the features that can encourage excessive social media use rather than taking the broader step of banning teenagers from the platforms altogether. He contrasted the measure with restrictions adopted in Australia and Malaysia that prevent teenagers from accessing social media or creating accounts. 

The law comes amid growing concerns about the impact of social media on children’s mental health and well-being. California lawmakers have increasingly focused on the design and business practices of technology platforms as part of efforts to protect young users.

AB 1709 is one of 13 youth online safety and privacy laws Newsom signed Sept.10. The package also includes measures regulating AI chatbots, increasing potential penalties for technology companies and establishing additional protections for children using digital services.

Lowenthal said the new rules represent a shift toward greater accountability for technology companies.

“We want oversight. We want accountability. We’re done asking nicely, and we’re demanding that there is a duty of care across these platforms — a duty that puts the wellness of our children ahead of profits,” Lowenthal said.

The law builds on California’s broader effort to regulate children’s online experiences. A separate law, AB 1043, will require users to provide their birth dates when setting up new phones or laptops beginning in January, with device manufacturers required to share users’ ages with apps.

Some youth online safety advocates have supported AB 1709 as a more targeted alternative to outright social media bans. Others have warned that the restrictions could make it harder for some LGBTQ+ young people to find support online and questioned how effectively age requirements can be enforced.

Word Count: 391

Gov. Gavin Newsom has signed a new California law targeting addictive social media features that can keep children scrolling, giving the state new authority to restrict how platforms engage young users.

AB 1709, authored by Assemblymember Josh Lowenthal (D-Long Beach) prohibits social media companies from giving children under 16 access to personalized feeds, including “For You” pages, as well as other features designed to maximize screen time, such as infinite scrolling and video autoplay.

The law does not prevent children under 16 from using social media. Instead, platforms must deactivate the covered features for those users.

“This is about actually addressing the problem, the scrolling, the algorithms,” Newsom said Sept. 10 during a bill-signing event in the San Francisco Bay Area.

Newsom said California’s approach focuses on the features that can encourage excessive social media use rather than taking the broader step of banning teenagers from the platforms altogether. He contrasted the measure with restrictions adopted in Australia and Malaysia that prevent teenagers from accessing social media or creating accounts. 

The law comes amid growing concerns about the impact of social media on children’s mental health and well-being. California lawmakers have increasingly focused on the design and business practices of technology platforms as part of efforts to protect young users.

AB 1709 is one of 13 youth online safety and privacy laws Newsom signed Sept.10. The package also includes measures regulating AI chatbots, increasing potential penalties for technology companies and establishing additional protections for children using digital services.

Lowenthal said the new rules represent a shift toward greater accountability for technology companies.

“We want oversight. We want accountability. We’re done asking nicely, and we’re demanding that there is a duty of care across these platforms — a duty that puts the wellness of our children ahead of profits,” Lowenthal said.

The law builds on California’s broader effort to regulate children’s online experiences. A separate law, AB 1043, will require users to provide their birth dates when setting up new phones or laptops beginning in January, with device manufacturers required to share users’ ages with apps.

Some youth online safety advocates have supported AB 1709 as a more targeted alternative to outright social media bans. Others have warned that the restrictions could make it harder for some LGBTQ+ young people to find support online and questioned how effectively age requirements can be enforced.

By Austin Gage, California Black Media

California voters will decide in November whether Proposition (Prop) 38 should authorize substantial state funding for immunology and immunotherapy research.

The initiative would fund immunology and immunotherapy research aimed at harnessing the body’s immune system to develop new treatments, medical procedures and potential cures for diseases such as cancer, Alzheimer’s disease and heart disease.

More specifically, Prop 38, titled the Immunology and Immunotherapy Research Funding Initiative, is split into three main components that would go into effect if passed.

First, the initiative would authorize the state to issue $8.4 billion in general obligation bonds to support immunology and immunotherapy research. At least half of the bond proceeds, or $4.2 billion, would be dedicated exclusively to research.

Additionally, Prop 38 would make it mandatory for the state to enter into an agreement with a qualified nonprofit institute focused and dedicated to researching immunology and immunotherapy within 90 days of the initiative’s effective date. The research institute must be affiliated with the University of California. 

The third component mandates that the remaining bond revenue must be directed to California-based public and nonprofit medical institutions through a peer-reviewed grant process.  

“Yes on 38”, with the tagline “Californians for Life-Saving Immunology Research and Cures,” is leading the campaign for the support side of the proposition. 

Along with the campaign, organizations that have publicly supported the ballot initiative include the California Democratic Party, The ALS Association, Alzheimer’s treatment and advocacy organizations, California Black Health Network, Parkinson Association of Northern California and Reform California among others.

“California has an opportunity to accelerate lifesaving medical breakthroughs. Immunotherapies work differently than traditional treatments. Instead of attacking cells directly, they empower the body’s own immune system to recognize and stop disease. Today, these therapies are already treating certain cancers and chronic conditions — and researchers continue to expand what’s possible. This initiative invests in proven science so cures can move from the lab to patients faster,” said the campaign.

No on Proposition 38 is leading the campaign against the measure, with support from the League of Women Voters of California. Opponents argue that California cannot afford to assume $8.4 billion in debt for medical research that may not produce definitive results. They also object to directing more than half of the bond proceeds — $4.2 billion — to a single qualifying nonprofit research institute, arguing that funding decisions of this magnitude should be made through the state’s regular budget process.

“Medical research can save lives, but Prop 38 is the wrong way to fund it. It would authorize $8.4 billion in borrowing for immunology and immunotherapy research and require the state to make $500 million to $600 million in annual debt payments for about 20 years. Those payments would come from the General Fund, which also pays for schools, health care, and other public services,” the League of Women Voters of California said.

A “yes” vote would authorize $8.4 billion in state bonds to fund immunology and immunotherapy medical research.

A “no” vote would reject the proposed bond funding.

By Bo Tefu, California Black Media

A bill by California Assemblymember Isaac Bryan (D-Ladera Heights) that would prevent state and local police officers from taking second jobs with federal immigration enforcement agencies is headed to Gov. Gavin Newsom after clearing the Legislature.

AB 1537 would bar California peace officers from accepting secondary employment related to immigration enforcement, including work with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). The measure also would require officers to report offers for immigration enforcement-related outside employment to their employing agencies.

The legislation comes as ICE ramps up efforts to recruit law enforcement personnel under the Trump administration. Bryan said the federal agency is offering financial incentives to attract officers, raising concerns about the impact on local law enforcement agencies and the communities they serve.

“They are trying to recruit our law enforcement personnel. They are offering these insane bonuses,” Bryan said.

Bryan said he is particularly concerned about efforts to recruit experienced law enforcement personnel while questions have been raised about ICE’s hiring standards.

“They want better skilled, better trained folks because their untrained and uneducated goons go through a very low threshold,” Bryan added.

The legislation would create consequences for California officers who violate its restrictions. Officers who fail to report offers of secondary employment related to immigration enforcement could face decertification as peace officers in California.

Bryan has framed the bill as a measure to establish boundaries between local law enforcement and federal immigration enforcement, particularly as immigration enforcement has become a major source of conflict between the Trump administration and California.

“This is a rogue agency that is harming the American people,” said Bryan. “It should be abolished, but in the meantime, we’ve got to do everything we can to put guardrails around our communities and protect our neighbors.”

AB 1537 previously received approval from the Assembly Public Safety Committee in March before advancing through the Legislature. The bill now awaits Newsom’s decision. The Governor can sign it into law, veto it or allow it to become law without his signature.

By Antonio Ray Harvey, California Black Media

A bill temporarily prohibiting law enforcement agencies from using electric shock gloves in California is awaiting action by Gov. Gavin Newsom.

Assembly Bill (AB) 2760, authored by Assemblymember LaShae Sharp-Collins (D-San Diego), passed the Senate 29-9 on Aug. 31. The Assembly concurred in Senate amendments the same day on a 55-16 vote.

The bill would prohibit state, local and federal law enforcement agencies from using wearable electroshock devices in California until Jan. 1, 2030. It would also bar agencies from using state funds to purchase the devices and require them to update their use-of-force policies accordingly.

Traditional handheld devices, including tasers and stun guns, are exempt.

Newsom has until Sept. 30 to sign or veto the bill. If he takes no action, it will become law without his signature.

Sharp-Collins introduced the measure after reviewing information indicating that the devices could cause serious injury or death if used without adequate safeguards and training.

“AB 2760 draws a line that public safety technology must be proven safe and accountable before it is employed. Not after someone is killed or injured,” said Sharp-Collins, a member of the California Legislative Black Caucus (CLBC).

“Our commitment is to protect our communities, especially the most vulnerable. That is what AB 2760 is about and that is what AB 2760 will do,” Sharp-Collins told her colleagues.

The device at the center of the debate is known as the G.L.O.V.E., an acronym for Generated Low Output Voltage Emitter. U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement awarded a $16.7 million contract for 6,000 pairs of the gloves, which are designed to deliver an electric shock through an officer’s hand.

During the Assembly debate, Assemblymember Rhodesia Ransom (D-Stockton), also a CLBC member, thanked law enforcement representatives for helping negotiate amendments to the bill.

“This is something new to us (and) it’s something that absolutely should be studied,” Ransom said. “I appreciate law enforcement for agreeing to work with the legislature to figure out if this is an appropriate tool to be used.”

Neither the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department nor the Los Angeles Police Department has reported using electric shock gloves. However, the Santa Monica and El Monte police departments have obtained devices for testing.

The Sacramento County Sheriff’s Office purchased 10 shock gloves as part of a $35,000 acquisition that also included 10 remotely activated shock bands. Sheriff’s officials had been developing training and policies for the devices before AB 2760 advanced.

State Sen. Tony Strickland (R-Huntington Beach) opposed the legislation, arguing that it would unnecessarily force agencies to change their use-of-force policies and could compromise public safety.

“I don’t disagree with the author that the electric shocks are not a great option, but at the end of the day, I think it’s important to understand that we need to give law enforcement the tools they need to keep themselves safe and the community safe,” Strickland said.

Supporters countered that wearable electroshock devices have not been sufficiently studied and could pose particular risks to immigrants, children, older adults and other vulnerable groups.

“People who are Black or Brown could be test subjects for these gloves of torment,” Mark González (D-Los Angeles) said. “I appreciate law enforcement for agreeing to work with the legislature.”

By Tamara Shiloh

Walter Francis White was one of the most important civil rights leaders of the first half of the 20th century. For more than three decades, he helped transform the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) into one of the nation’s most powerful organizations fighting racial discrimination, segregation, and violence against African Americans.

Walter White was born in Atlanta, Georgia, in 1893 and grew up in a middle-class African American family. His parents, George and Madeline White, had been born into slavery. Although Walter had blond hair, blue eyes, very light skin and could easily have passed as white, he firmly identified as Black. As a teenager, he witnessed the Atlanta Race Massacre of 1906, when white mobs attacked African Americans throughout the city. The experience strengthened his determination to fight racial hatred and injustice.

After graduating from Atlanta University in 1916, White worked in insurance and became active in the Atlanta branch of the NAACP. His abilities caught the attention of NAACP leader James Weldon Johnson, who recruited him to the organization’s national staff in 1918.

He soon became known for his extraordinarily dangerous investigations of lynchings. Because many white Southerners assumed he was white, he was able to enter communities where Black investigators would have faced immediate danger. He spoke with witnesses, law enforcement officials, and even members of lynch mobs, often pretending to share their racial attitudes so they would reveal information.

White personally investigated 41 lynchings and eight race riots. On several occasions, his identity was discovered, forcing him to flee for his life. The evidence he collected helped the NAACP expose the brutality of lynching to Americans and strengthen its campaign for federal anti-lynching legislation. His experiences also influenced his 1929 book, “Rope and Faggot: A Biography of Judge Lynch.”

By the early 1930s, Walter had risen to the NAACP’s top administrative position. As executive secretary, he helped build the organization into a major national political and legal force. Under his leadership, the NAACP challenged discrimination in voting, employment, education, transportation, the military, and other areas of American life.

White also recruited attorney Charles Hamilton Houston to lead the NAACP’s legal strategy. Houston and his protégé, Thurgood Marshall, developed the courtroom campaign that eventually helped produce the Supreme Court’s historic 1954 decision in Brown v. Board of Education, declaring racial segregation in public schools unconstitutional.

White used his relationships with national political leaders as another weapon against discrimination. He worked with First Lady Eleanor Roosevelt, President Franklin D. Roosevelt, and President Harry S. Truman. He supported efforts to end employment discrimination and encouraged Truman to establish the President’s Committee on Civil Rights.

Walter White remained an NAACP leader until his death in 1955. His courage, political skill, investigative work, and relentless commitment to equality helped establish the foundation upon which the modern Civil Rights Movement would build.