It had sought millions in damages from a research group that found a rise in hate speech on X. X CEO Elon Musk has said a similar “thermonuclear” lawsuit is about “protecting free speech.”
A lawsuit that Elon Musk’s X filed last year against a research group was thrown out Monday, with US District Judge Charles Breyer saying, “This case is about punishing the Defendants for their speech.”
In its complaint, filed in the Northern District of California, X argued that the nonprofit Center for Countering Digital Hate violated the platform’s terms of service in gathering data for reports that documented a significant increase in hate speech on X following Musk’s takeover.
The company claimed the CCDH was responsible for “tens of millions of dollars” in damages due to lost advertising revenue and the expense of internal investigations.
But Breyer wrote “there can be no mistaking” that the real motive of the suit was to bully X’s critics into silence.
The decision cited a survey that found “social media researchers have canceled, suspended or changed more than 100 studies about X” as a result of Musk’s policies as CEO.
Related stories When asked for comment on the decision, the press email for X replied, “Busy now, please check back later.”
Musk has previously said he’s a “free speech absolutist” and that his “thermonuclear” lawsuits against media-watchdog groups are about “protecting free speech.”
In his scathing dismissal, Breyer said the CCDH exercising its First Amendment rights was the fundamental issue, despite X’s attempt to sidestep it with arguments about data privacy and security.
In its complaint, X was seeking payment for advertising revenue it said it lost because of the CCDH’s reports, but it stopped short of contesting any of the facts in those reports.
“It is apparent to the Court that X Corp. wishes to have it both ways,” Breyer wrote, “to be spared the burdens of pleading a defamation claim, while bemoaning the harm to its reputation, and seeking punishing damages based on reputational harm.”
In a footnote, he added: “If there is any question about the ‘punishing’ part, X Corp. filed a similar suit, not before this Court, in November of 2023 against Media Matters, another non-profit media watchdog, for ‘reporting on ads from major brands appearing next to neo-Nazi content.'”
In a statement, the CCDH’s CEO and founder, Imran Ahmed, said the lawsuit was part of Musk’s “loud, hypocritical campaign of harassment, abuse, and lawfare designed to avoid taking responsibility for his own decisions.”
“We hope this landmark ruling will embolden public-interest researchers everywhere,” he added, “to continue, and even intensify, their vital work of holding social media companies accountable for the hate and disinformation they host and the harm they cause.”
A lawsuit filed by X was dismissed by a US judge on the grounds that it was intended to “punish the defendants for their speech.”. “.
It had sued a research team that discovered an increase in hate speech on X for millions of dollars in damages.
Elon Musk, the CEO of X, stated that the goal of a related “thermonuclear” lawsuit is “to protect free speech.”. “.”.
US District Judge Charles Breyer dismissed a lawsuit Elon Musk’s X filed against a research group last year on Monday, stating, “This case is about punishing the Defendants for their speech.”. “.
X claimed in its complaint, which was submitted to the Northern District of California, that the nonprofit Center for Countering Digital Hate had breached the platform’s terms of service by collecting information for reports that showed a notable rise in hate speech on X after Musk took over.
Because of lost advertising revenue and the cost of internal investigations, the company asserted that the CCDH was liable for damages totaling “tens of millions of dollars.”.
However, Breyer stated that “there can be no mistaking” that the true goal of the lawsuit was to intimidate X’s detractors into quiet.
The ruling referenced a survey indicating that due to Musk’s CEO policies, “social media researchers have canceled, suspended, or changed more than 100 studies about X.”.
connected narratives.
The press email for X stated, “Busy now, please check back later,” in response to a question about comments regarding the decision. “.
Musk has declared in the past that he is a “free speech absolutist” and that “protecting free speech” is the goal of his “thermonuclear” lawsuits against media watchdog organizations. “.
Breyer delivered a harsh critique, stating that despite X’s attempts to skirt the issue with claims of data security and privacy, the core problem was the CCDH exercising its First Amendment rights.
X did not dispute any of the information in the CCDH’s reports; instead, it only demanded payment for advertising revenue it claimed it lost as a result of those reports in its complaint.
The Court deems it evident that X Corp. seeks to have it both ways, “wishing to have to bear the costs of bringing a defamation lawsuit, lamenting the damage to its image, and requesting punitive damages for reputational harm,” Breyer wrote. “.
He also added in a footnote: “X Corp. should be contacted if there is any doubt regarding the “punishing” aspect. filed a comparable lawsuit in November 2023—not in front of this court—against Media Matters, a different nonprofit media watchdog, for “exposing business advertisements from well-known brands that are shown next to racist content.”. ‘.
Imran Ahmed, the CEO and founder of CCDH, said in a statement that Musk’s “loud, hypocritical campaign of harassment, abuse, and lawfare designed to avoid taking responsibility for his own decisions” included the lawsuit. “.
“We hope that public-interest researchers around the world will be encouraged by this historic decision to carry out and even step up their crucial work of holding social media companies responsible for the hate and misinformation they promote and the harm they commit,” he continued. ****.
