A U.S. federal district court has ruled in a case involving The Babylon Bee that a Hawaii law that censors online political speech is unconstitutional. 

Last June, the Bee, a media outlet widely recognized for its satirical material, and a Hawaii resident challenged S2687, a state law that censored online content, including political satire and parody. The law went into effect in July 2024 and specifically prohibited the distribution of "materially deceptive media," the Alliance Defending Freedom, a non-profit legal group, reports. 

The law further defined that media that portrays politicians in a way that risks harming "the reputation or electoral prospects of a candidate" is a violation.  The law also forces distributors of satirical content to post large disclaimers on the satirical nature of the content, undermining the purpose of satire. 

The first violation of the law carries a fine of up to $1,000 and up to 30 days imprisonment. A second violation within five years of the first increases the penalty to $2,000 and one year imprisonment.

To post their content, the Bee and other satirical publications were required to include large disclaimers that they argued would damage the message and the purpose of satire. The Babylon Bee said it was unwilling to include a disclaimer. 

Hawaii resident Dawn O'Brien argued the law forced her to avoid posting content she would otherwise post to avoid the harsh penalties.

"Both 'Hawai'i' and 'Aloha' are rooted in '-ha,' the Hawaiian word for 'breath of life,'" said O'Brien. "It's the very essence of our identity: to breathe and speak freely, to express our hearts with one another! No 'ha' means no aloha and no Hawai'i! Our governor and lawmakers are trying once again to steal inalienable rights from our Hawai'i 'ohana' (family/community). That is not Aloha nor is it Hawai'i! Let's stand for our freedoms and families against illegal censorship. I stand for our beloved Aloha State!" 

The Alliance Defending Freedom represented the Babylon Bee and O'Brien in the lawsuit, arguing that the law violated fundamental free speech rights by using "vague and overbroad standards to punish people for posting certain political content online, including political memes and parodies of politicians."

"Hawaii's war against political memes and satire is censorship, pure and simple," said ADF Legal Counsel Mathew Hoffmann. "Satire has served as an important vehicle to deliver truth with a smile for centuries, and this kind of speech receives the utmost protection under the Constitution."

Judge Shanlyn Park wrote in her opinion that the law imposed a "vague standard" that was "two-fold." She explained that the law "muddies the line between compliance and noncompliance."

"Political speech, of course, is at the core of what the First Amendment is designed to protect," she added. "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."

Late last week, Hawaii's law was deemed unconstitutional. 

The ADF, the Babylon Bee, and O'Brien celebrated the ruling. 

"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 Babylon Bee CEO Seth Dillon. "We are grateful to Alliance Defending Freedom for representing us as we continue to challenge laws that treat comedy like a crime."

"We the people have prevailed," O'Brien said. 

Hoffmann agreed, "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."