I'm not - it appears to me that both sides of the political arena (as far as politicians go, I can't speak for individual people, who vary as much as people do everywhere) in the USA are happy to support censorship/control. Their reasons for censorship and what they want to censor differ, but both parties in the past few years have seemed to be gripped with a, for lack of a better word, authoritarian spirit. One article I read awhile back suggested that the usual Right/Left distinctions weren't very useful these days, and that an authoritarian vs. libertarian (not to be confused with Libertarian as in a specific party) distinction fit better. Or you can go with the 3x3 grid that NationStates used, which split it up three dimensionally - economic, political, and personal. Both of the main two parties support a tendency towards authoritarianism in some fashion - it's just which dimension(s) they support it on aren't the same. (Even within parties people can differ greatly on that aspect.) "For the children" is the one thing that has historically tended to cross party lines, because [sarcasm]EVERYONE knows that children shouldn't see porn or be abused, and so that justifies whatever they want to do.[/sarcasm]

Iirc California has already passed bills supporting censorship/control in other areas, but since those align with the Left's ideals more closely, there hasn't been as much complaint or noise about it. Me, I think censorship is bad no matter which side it supports. History demonstrates that once the ability and power to censor or control is given to a government, they don't give it back - and what is used on your opponents can easily be turned around to be used on you.