Elon Musk's X Corp. Wins Lawsuit Against California's Content-Moderation Law

Blocking California's Content-Moderation Law

A federal appeals court has approved X Corp.'s request to block a section of a California state law. This law requires social media platforms to disclose their content moderation and anti-hate speech policies. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued an order on September 4, granting X Corp.'s request for a preliminary injunction and reversing a district court's ruling against the social media company owned by Elon Musk.

The Court's Opinion

The court opined that the bill's content-moderation provisions are not narrowly tailored to serve California's intended goal of requiring social media companies to be transparent about their content-related practices. It may even amount to unconstitutionally compelled speech. "The panel held that X Corp. was likely to succeed on the merits of its claim that the Content Category Report provisions facially violate the First Amendment," the appeals court judges stated in their opinion.

Understanding AB 587

AB 587 requires large social media companies to post their terms of service and submit periodic reports to the California Attorney General's office about their content-moderation practices and policies. A significant provision of the bill requires a semiannual report detailing how the platforms categorize six types of content: hate speech or racism; extremism or radicalization; disinformation and misinformation; harassment; foreign political interference; and controlled substance distribution.

X Corp.'s Argument

In its lawsuit, X Corp. argued that the law aims to pressure social media companies to censor content that the government finds objectionable. It also improperly compels speech in violation of the First Amendment. "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," X Corp. attorneys argued in their complaint.

Reversal of the District Court's Decision

In December 2023, a district court denied X Corp.'s request for a preliminary injunction. However, the 9th Circuit reversed this decision on September 4, stating that the Content Category Report provisions likely compel noncommercial speech and probably fail the strict scrutiny standard because they are not narrowly tailored to serve the state's transparency interest. The 9th Circuit instructed the district court to issue a preliminary injunction in line with the panel’s opinion.

Broader Implications

The legal battle between X Corp. and the state of California over AB 587 is part of a larger trend where social media platforms and industry groups have pushed back against laws around content moderation on First Amendment grounds. Recently, the 9th Circuit appeals court issued a ruling that upheld the data privacy-related provisions of California’s online child safety laws, while striking down those that required social media platforms to assess and mitigate risks of harmful content. The appeals court found that the blocked provisions likely violate free speech rights.

Bottom Line

The ongoing legal battle between X Corp. and the state of California highlights the tension between the need for transparency in content moderation and the protection of free speech rights. It raises questions about the role of government in regulating content on social media platforms. What are your thoughts on this matter? Feel free to share this article with your friends and discuss. Remember, you can sign up for the Daily Briefing, which is every day at 6pm.