Elon Musk launches free speech lawsuit over California’s content moderation law

LAUREN TAYLOR:

HATE SPEECH IS A HOT TOPIC FOR SOCIAL PLATFORMS – ESPECIALLY WITH RECENT CHANGES TO ‘X’ FORMERLY KNOWN AS TWITTER. 

ELON MUSK HAS BEEN ACCUSED OF NOT DOING ENOUGH TO KEEP THINGS CIVIL- SO IT WAS A SURPRISING DEVELOPMENT WHEN THE BILLIONAIRE FLIPPED THE SCRIPT BY FILING A FREE SPEECH LAWSUIT AGAINST THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA.

X CORP IS SUING CALIFORNIA OVER LEGISLATION GOVERNOR NEWSOM SIGNED INTO LAW LAST YEAR – BEFORE MUSK ACQUIRED THE SOCIAL MEDIA PLATFORM.

THE LAW – ASSEMBLY BILL 587 – REQUIRES SOCIAL MEDIA COMPANIES TO POST THEIR TERMS OF SERVICE ONLINE –

AND SUBMIT REPORTS TWICE A YEAR TO CALIFORNIA’S ATTORNEY GENERAL – SHOWING HOW THEIR PLATFORM ADDRESSES “HATE SPEECH” – INCLUDING RACISM, MISINFORMATION, EXTREMISM AND HARASSMENT.

IN SEPTEMBER 2022… NEWSOM TOUTED THE BILL AS A NEW TRANSPARENCY MEASURE FOR TECH AND SOCIAL MEDIA COMPANIES SAYING QUOTE…  “CALIFORNIA WILL NOT STAND BY AS SOCIAL MEDIA IS WEAPONIZED TO SPREAD HATE AND DISINFORMATION THAT THREATEN OUR COMMUNITIES AND FOUNDATIONAL VALUES AS A COUNTRY.” 

ACCORDING TO THE COMPLAINT — THE CALIFORNIA LAW VIOLATES THE FREE SPEECH PROTECTIONS UNDER THE FIRST AMENDMENT OF THE U-S CONSTITUTION.

IT’S THE AGE-OLD QUESTION – WHAT EXACTLY IS “HATE SPEECH”?

WHO GETS TO DEFINE IT?

AND ARE SOCIAL MEDIA COMPANIES RESPONSIBLE FOR POSTS PEOPLE MAKE ON THEIR PLATFORM?

ACCORDING TO THE CAMBRIDGE DICTIONARY…

HATE SPEECH IS “PUBLIC SPEECH THAT EXPRESSES HATE OR ENCOURAGES VIOLENCE TOWARD A PERSON OR GROUP BASED ON SOMETHING SUCH AS RACE, RELIGION, SEX, OR SEXUAL ORIENTATION.”

HOWEVER – THERE’S NO LEGAL DEFINITION OF HATE SPEECH UNDER U-S LAW.

AND CALIFORNIA’S AB 587 DOES NOT DEFINE “HATE SPEECH, EITHER.

THE STATE’S CONSTITUTION DECLARES: “Every person may freely speak, write and publish his or her sentiments on all subjects, being responsible for the abuse of this right. A law may not restrain or abridge liberty of speech or press.” END QUOTE.

ACCORDING TO RESEARCHERS WITH “THE CENTER FOR COUNTERING DIGITAL HATE” – A NON-PROFIT THAT MONITORS ONLINE HATE SPEECH – X CORP CONTINUES TO “HOST 86% OF 300 POSTS REPORTED FOR HATE SPEECH” – WHICH INCLUDES RACISM, ANTI SEMITISM, AND NAZI PROPAGANDA – ACCORDING TO THE ORGANIZATION’S NEW SEPTEMBER REPORT.

SO, IS HATE SPEECH PROTECTED BY THE FIRST AMENDMENT?

LET’S TAKE A LOOK AT SOME LANDMARK SUPREME COURT CASES THAT DEAL WITH THE ISSUE…

IN TEXAS VS. JOHNSON…

A MAN NAMED GREGORY LEE JOHNSON WAS CONVICTED OF BURNING THE AMERICAN FLAG OUTSIDE THE 1984 REPUBLICAN NATIONAL CONVENTION IN DALLAS.

IN THE MAJORITY OPINION – JUSTICE WILLIAM BRENNAN DECLARED QUOTE…

“IF THERE IS A BEDROCK PRINCIPLE UNDERLYING THE FIRST AMENDMENT, IT IS THAT THE GOVERNMENT MAY NOT PROHIBIT THE EXPRESSION OF AN IDEA SIMPLY BECAUSE SOCIETY FINDS THE IDEA ITSELF OFFENSIVE OR DISAGREEABLE.” END QUOTE.

AND IN SNYDER VS. PHELPS…

THE WESTBORO BAPTIST CHURCH HELD A PICKET OUTSIDE THE FUNERAL OF U-S MARINE LANCE CORPORAL MATTHEW SNYDER – WITH SIGNS THAT READ “THANK GOD FOR DEAD SOLDIERS” AND “YOU’RE GOING TO HELL”.

THE CASE WAS DECIDED IN 2011 AND THE JUSTICES CONCLUDED…

“SPEECH IS POWERFUL. IT CAN STIR PEOPLE TO ACTION, MOVE THEM TO TEARS OF BOTH JOY AND SORROW, AND—AS IT DID HERE—INFLICT GREAT PAIN. ON THE FACTS BEFORE US, WE CANNOT REACT TO THAT PAIN BY PUNISHING THE SPEAKER.” END QUOTE.

NOW… ACCORDING TO X CORP’S COMPLAINT…

ASSEMBLY BILL 587 “HAS BOTH THE PURPOSE AND LIKELY EFFECT OF PRESSURING COMPANIES SUCH AS X CORP. TO REMOVE, DEMONETIZE, OR DEPRIORITIZE CONSTITUTIONALLY-PROTECTED SPEECH THAT THE STATE DEEMS UNDESIRABLE OR HARMFUL…”

AND THE SUIT ALLEGES “THE LAW INTENDS TO PRESSURE SOCIAL MEDIA COMPANIES TO ‘ELIMINATE CERTAIN CONSTITUTIONALLY PROTECTED CONTENT THAT THE STATE BELIEVES IS PROBLEMATIC.’”

MUSK WANTS “A-B 587” OVERTURNED.

CALIFORNIA’S ATTORNEY GENERAL – ROB BONTA SAID – HIS OFFICE WOULD LOOK OVER THE COMPLAINT AND RESPOND.