Elon Musk's X Corp sues California over new social media law

Allegations against Assembly Bill 587

According to Reuters, X Corp has lodged a formal complaint in a federal court in Sacramento, contending that the recently enacted law infringes on its constitutional rights to free speech under both the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and the California State Constitution. The organization further alleges that the law's "true intent" is to coerce social media platforms into censoring content that the state finds objectionable, thereby constituting "a form of compelled speech in and of itself," as per X Corp's assertion.

Today, @X filed a First Amendment lawsuit against California AB 587. As made clear by both the legislative history and public court submissions from the Attorney General in defending the law, the true intent of AB 587 is to pressure social media platforms to “eliminate” certain…

— Global Government Affairs (@GlobalAffairs) September 8, 2023

This lawsuit comes nearly a year after Musk, the world's richest person and a self-described "free speech absolutist," acquired Twitter for $44 billion. Following the acquisition, he implemented dramatic changes, including laying off several employees responsible for content moderation. Musk also restored some accounts that the previous management had banned.

These changes have led to a notable surge in hate speech on the platform, targeting various communities such as Jews, Black people, gay men, and trans people, according to reports from organizations like the Anti-Defamation League and the Center for Countering Digital Hate.

California’s response

California Governor Gavin Newsom signed Assembly Bill 587 into law last September, stating that the state could not allow social media to be "weaponized" for spreading hate and disinformation. The office of California Attorney General Rob Bonta, responsible for enforcing state laws, has confirmed that it will respond to the lawsuit in court.

In the backdrop of this legal battle, Musk has blamed critics, including the Anti-Defamation League, for a 60% decline in U.S. advertising revenue on the X platform. A.J. Brown, former head of brand safety and ad quality at X, recently revealed that changes limiting the visibility of objectionable content rather than removing it have made it challenging to reassure advertisers about the platform's safety.

National developments: First Amendment controversy

In a related development, the Biden administration also finds itself embroiled in a First Amendment controversy. The Fifth US Circuit Court of Appeals ruled on Friday that the White House, along with other agencies, “likely violated the First Amendment” by significantly encouraging social media platforms to moderate content related to COVID-19. This decision narrows the scope of an earlier district court order led by Judge Terry Doughty, a Trump appointee, who had held that there was likely collusion between the Biden administration and Big Tech to censor protected speech during the pandemic.

As both federal and state authorities grapple with the complexities of free speech and content moderation, the lawsuit filed by X Corp against California's Assembly Bill 587 serves as a critical moment, raising questions about how much control the government should exert over social media companies.