Elon Musk's X Files 39-Page Lawsuit After 'Problematic' Censorship Bill Passes
X Corp., which is owned by Elon Musk, is suing California over a law that it equates to censorship.
“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 constitutionally-protected content viewed by the State as problematic,” the company’s General Government Affairs unit posted on X.
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
The law requires social media companies to publicly post policies on hate speech, disinformation, harassment, and extremism and report to the state on the actions they have taken to implement those policies, according to The Hill. The law is known as Assembly Bill 587 or AB 587.
The lawsuit said the bill is nothing more than an effort to muzzle speech California leaders do not like.
“AB 587 violates the First Amendment of the United States Constitution and Article 16 I, Section 2, of the California Constitution because it compels companies like X Corp. to engage in speech against their will, impermissibly interferes with the constitutionally-protected editorial judgments of companies such as X Corp., 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 places an unjustified and undue burden on social media companies such as X Corp.,” the lawsuit stated.
Worth reading our actual legal filing vs what you may see in the media https://t.co/fsLCUeUINq
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) September 9, 2023
The lawsuit said that California says the bill is about transparency but “a review of the law’s purpose and likely effect — as evidenced by the legislative history and statements from AB 587’s author, sponsors, and supporters — demonstrates otherwise.”
“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 constitutionally-protected content viewed by the State as problematic,” the lawsuit said.
“The legislative record is crystal clear that one of the main purposes of AB 587 — if not the main purpose — is to pressure social media companies to eliminate or minimize content that the government has deemed objectionable,” the lawsuit said.
The lawsuit said California is trying to play the role of puppeteer.
“[T]hrough AB 587, the State is compelling social media companies to take public positions on controversial and politically-charged issues. And, because X Corp. must take such positions on these topics as they are formulated by the State, X Corp. is being forced to adopt the State’s politically-charged terms, which is a form of compelled speech in and of itself,” the lawsuit said.
The lawsuit said issues California wishes X Corp. to define are not ones where general agreement exists, noting that in some cases intentionally calling a person by a gender other than the one with which they identify, is considered hate speech.
The lawsuit said the state is trying to violate the First Amendment.
“The First Amendment does not permit the government to compel social media companies to publicly take positions on these controversial political topics against their will,” the lawsuit said.
When he signed the bill, California Gov. Gavin Newsom said, “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 Hill.
“Californians deserve to know how these platforms are impacting our public discourse, and this action brings much-needed transparency and accountability to the policies that shape the social media content we consume every day,” he said then.
Truth and Accuracy
We are committed to truth and accuracy in all of our journalism. Read our editorial standards.
