Californians could be sued, charged $66 per hour for asking questions of state government under crazy new bill ⁠56%

By Titus Wu⁠85%

6/18/2026, 10:09:18 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 28 faulty reasoning types, including Appeal to Emotion, Availability Heuristic, and Biased Writer Voice, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 22.4% saturation with 137 hits. Analysis detected 1,444 faulty-reasoning hits from 611 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 53.7% and a BS Rank of ⁠56% (9,075 of 20,372 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 55.50% of the article peer group.

Transparency advocates are enraged over a sneaky change to a California bill that would make it harder to get details on what government agencies are doing — and could even haul people seeking public records to court. 
News publishers and other First Amendment supporters had already opposed Assembly Bill 1821 by Assemblymember Blanca Pacheco (D), which initially just sought to extend the timeline for when government entities, such as city halls or state agencies, needed to respond to a request for public records. 
But Pacheco adjusted her measure so that steep fees can be charged for the time staff spends to find publicly available records: an administrative fee of $22.35 per hour and a “professional fee” of $66.26 per hour, both subject to cost-of-living increases. 
Not only that, under the newest version of the bill, if a government believes the record requester has “malicious intent,” it can ask a court to make that determination and put the request on hold pending a court decision. 
But the “malicious intent” provision that allows the government to take someone to court is particularly dangerous, claimed David Snyder, the coalition's executive director. 
“It would be easily weaponized by agencies seeking to thwart transparency and accountability, as has already happened elsewhere in the country,” he said. 
“For decades, California law has been clear that state and local agencies cannot sue records requesters.” 
A spokesperson for Pacheco told The Post that the bill is designed to help small government entities like city and county governments — who support the legislation — handle unreasonable records requests. 
For example, counties have pointed to a case in late 2021 in early 2022 in which a requester sought records between El Dorado County and four email domains over a five year period. 
That resulted in more than 42,000 potential records, but the county could not get the requester to narrow his or her request even after going to court. 
“The malicious-intent provision is intended to address the rare circumstances in which the Public Records Act is being used to disrupt agency operations, harass staff, or consume disproportionate public resources without a corresponding public benefit,” Pacheco's office said. 
Supporters also note the bill's fees mainly targets commercial requesters — those making records requests for a company such as a data broker to make profit — and not those in education or the news media. 
Graham Knaus, CEO of the California State Association of Counties, insisted to The Post that going to the court for “malicious intent” determinations will only be used for very rare cases. 
It's about leaving it to an impartial court — not the government agency itself — to be the adjudicator, he added. 
Artificial intelligence has made it extremely easy to draft records requests, and unreasonable requests can force huge costs that ultimately hurt the public, he said. 
“We believe that taxpayers should not be forced to bear the cost of an AI business model for those that are attempting to overwhelm the ability of local governments to provide services to our residents,” he said. 
Still, the measure can put a “chill” on general access to government information, Snyder said, and does not make California Democrats who have attacked President Donald Trump for non-transparency look great. 
“The fundamentals of democracy are being tested now in America. 
It is exactly the wrong time for California to take the serious backward step toward unaccountability,” he said. 
Lawmakers have until end of August to send bills to the governor. 
Pacheco's bill passed the Assembly and is currently making its way through the state Senate. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 9.0%Titus Wu: 4.8%California Post: 4.1%Confirmation Bias9.0%This article: 6.9%Titus Wu: 1.2%California Post: 1.4%Anchoring Bias6.9%This article: 19.3%Titus Wu: 3.5%California Post: 4.2%Availability Heuristic19.3%This article: 5.9%Titus Wu: 1.1%California Post: 1.1%Representativeness Heuristic5.9%This article: 0.0%Titus Wu: 0.4%California Post: 0.7%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 4.1%Titus Wu: 1.8%California Post: 2.2%Overconfidence Bias4.1%This article: 15.9%Titus Wu: 12.5%California Post: 10.4%Framing Effect15.9%This article: 0.0%Titus Wu: 1.1%California Post: 0.9%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Titus Wu: 0.3%California Post: 0.6%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Titus Wu: 0.4%California Post: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Titus Wu: 0.4%California Post: 2.5%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 10.6%Titus Wu: 1.4%California Post: 1.5%Pessimism Bias10.6%This article: 22.4%Titus Wu: 22.1%California Post: 16.1%Negativity Bias22.4%This article: 12.3%Titus Wu: 4.6%California Post: 2.4%Self-Serving Bias12.3%This article: 0.0%Titus Wu: 1.8%California Post: 1.5%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Titus Wu: 0.3%California Post: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 5.2%Titus Wu: 2.4%California Post: 1.6%In-Group Bias5.2%This article: 5.1%Titus Wu: 1.4%California Post: 1.1%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias5.1%This article: 3.4%Titus Wu: 0.9%California Post: 3.0%Halo Effect3.4%This article: 0.0%Titus Wu: 0.7%California Post: 0.6%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Titus Wu: 0.0%California Post: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 2.6%Titus Wu: 1.6%California Post: 1.6%Recency Bias2.6%This article: 0.0%Titus Wu: 0.5%California Post: 0.5%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Titus Wu: 0.1%California Post: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 5.1%Titus Wu: 4.2%California Post: 2.6%Ad Hominem5.1%This article: 0.0%Titus Wu: 0.8%California Post: 0.5%Straw Man0.0%This article: 12.9%Titus Wu: 3.4%California Post: 4.2%Appeal to Authority12.9%This article: 3.4%Titus Wu: 2.1%California Post: 1.5%False Dilemma3.4%This article: 3.8%Titus Wu: 1.3%California Post: 1.0%Slippery Slope3.8%This article: 0.0%Titus Wu: 0.3%California Post: 0.2%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 4.1%Titus Wu: 6.8%California Post: 5.5%Hasty Generalization4.1%This article: 0.0%Titus Wu: 1.1%California Post: 0.7%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Titus Wu: 1.0%California Post: 1.4%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 19.6%Titus Wu: 9.6%California Post: 9.0%Appeal to Emotion19.6%This article: 6.2%Titus Wu: 1.2%California Post: 1.1%Begging the Question6.2%This article: 4.4%Titus Wu: 1.7%California Post: 2.7%Post Hoc (False Cause)4.4%This article: 5.1%Titus Wu: 1.4%California Post: 0.2%Tu Quoque5.1%This article: 0.0%Titus Wu: 0.7%California Post: 0.8%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Titus Wu: 0.5%California Post: 0.2%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Titus Wu: 0.0%California Post: 0.2%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 13.6%Titus Wu: 1.9%California Post: 3.6%Anecdotal13.6%This article: 0.0%Titus Wu: 0.0%California Post: 0.0%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 6.1%Titus Wu: 3.2%California Post: 2.0%Ambiguity (Equivocation)6.1%This article: 0.0%Titus Wu: 0.0%California Post: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Titus Wu: 0.1%California Post: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Titus Wu: 0.1%California Post: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Titus Wu: 0.3%California Post: 0.2%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Titus Wu: 1.1%California Post: 0.4%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Titus Wu: 3.9%California Post: 3.2%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 1.6%Titus Wu: 1.6%California Post: 2.1%Quote-first Misdirection1.6%This article: 18.8%Titus Wu: 17.4%California Post: 13.2%Biased Writer Voice18.8%This article: 3.8%Titus Wu: 0.5%California Post: 1.4%Indoctrination3.8%This article: 5.1%Titus Wu: 0.7%California Post: 0.4%Politically Left Leaning Bias5.1%This article: 0.0%Titus Wu: 3.7%California Post: 3.1%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Titus Wu: 1.7%California Post: 6.0%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

611 words analyzed.

Speakers

3speakers45%attributed speech337writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 18 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 37 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 46 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 42 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 39 words • 0.0% coverageDavid Snyder • 24 words • 0.0% coverageDavid Snyder • 23 words • 100.0% coverageDavid Snyder • 16 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 32 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 33 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 27 words • 0.0% coveragePacheco's office • 38 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 36 words • 0.0% coverageGraham Knaus • 31 words • 0.0% coverageGraham Knaus • 21 words • 0.0% coverageGraham Knaus • 25 words • 0.0% coverageGraham Knaus • 37 words • 0.0% coverageDavid Snyder • 31 words • 100.0% coverageDavid Snyder • 10 words • 100.0% coverageDavid Snyder • 18 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

David Snyder

100%flagged-word coverage
122 attributed words45% of attributed speech67% writer coverage
0%15.0%30.0%Biased Writer Voice-14.0 ptsWriter: 28.8%David Snyder: 14.8%14.8%Politically Left Leaning B+25.4 ptsWriter: 0.0%David Snyder: 25.4%25.4%Indoctrination+18.9 ptsWriter: 0.0%David Snyder: 18.9%18.9%Quote-first Misdirection+8.2 ptsWriter: 0.0%David Snyder: 8.2%8.2%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.