(The Center Square) – California lawmakers are considering legislation that would expand required training for public officials to include instruction on anti-hate speech.
Critics warn that the bill relies on a vague and potentially subjective definition that could be used to limit civil discourse.
Assembly Bill 1578, authored by Assemblymember Corey Jackson, D-Riverside, would add one hour of anti-hate speech training to the sexual harassment prevention training already required for state and local officials. The bill, which was discussed April 15 by the Assembly Standing Committee on Local Government, is scheduled for a hearing Wednesday by the Assembly Committee on Governmental Organization.
The proposal would apply to a wide range of elected leaders, including state legislators, constitutional officers, city council members, county supervisors and school board trustees across all 58 counties. If passed, this would be implemented in 2028.
This is part of a broader legislative effort led by Jackson and fellow Assemblymembers Josh Lowenthal, D-Long Beach and Patrick Ahrens, D-Silicon Valley.
Lawmakers say the package draws on findings from the Commission on the State of Hate and aims to address hate in public spaces, workplaces and institutions through training and accountability.
The legislative package also includes AB 2347 by Ahrens and AB 1803 by Lowenthal, which address related issues involving hate and bias.
In an interview with The Center Square, Jackson said an existing formal definition of hate speech developed by the Commission on Hate Speech would guide the proposal, and he does not plan to create a separate definition.
“This training is really to simply say ‘that your public statements, your social media posts can kill people,’ ” Jackson told The Center Square.
The Center Square found no formal definition of hate speech by the Commission on the State of Hate, but Jackson highlighted that hate speech can also be a hate crime, which is a criminal offense.
The training costs will be reimbursed by the state, but the exact amount has not yet been determined and will depend on the size of the districts.
AB 1578 has drawn both support and opposition.
The Alameda County Office of Education, located in Hayward, Calif., expressed support, stating that specialized training can help officials recognize and avoid language that perpetuates bias and better align intent with public impact.
“In the current political climate, where discourse can often become polarized and inflammatory, it is more important than ever for elected officials to receive specialized anti-hate speech training,” Lucy Carter, the director of policy and governance at ACOE, wrote in a support letter to the Assembly Standing Committee on Local Government.
Greg Burt, vice president of the California Family Council and a strong opponent of all three bills, argued that the term “hate speech” is vague and often subjective. He contends it is increasingly used to label political or philosophical disagreement rather than genuine threats or incitement to violence.
According to Burt, this ambiguity allows people to dismiss opposing viewpoints by framing them as driven by hatred instead of engaging with their substance.
“This is a tactic,” Burt told The Center Square. “It is being used by the left against those who they disagree with. They don’t argue the substance of their position anymore. They simply claim the other people are motivated by hatred, and so when somebody is motivated by hatred, we don’t have to listen to them.”
“They have given up persuading people that their views are correct,” Burt added. “They’re just using government power now to ban and shame those who might disagree with them by calling them hateful.”
