Twitter's lawsuit against anti-hate-speech crusaders gets SLAPPed out of court
- Reference: 1711396753
- News link: https://www.theregister.co.uk/2024/03/25/musk_lawsuit_hate_speech/
- Source link:
In a 52-page [1]order [PDF], San Francisco federal district judge Charles Breyer said, in essence, that Musk's lawsuit against the nonprofit was a classic example of a Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation, or SLAPP suit, a type of legal challenge designed to stifle free speech.
"Sometimes it is unclear what is driving a litigation, and only by reading between the lines of a complaint can one attempt to surmise a plaintiff's true purpose," Judge Breyer said in his ruling. "Other times, a complaint is so unabashedly and vociferously about one thing that there can be no mistaking that purpose."
[2]
"This case represents the latter circumstance," Breyer added. "This case is about punishing the defendants for their speech."
[3]
[4]
The lawsuit, [5]filed by X Corp against the UK-based Center for Countering Digital Hate (CCDH) last August, was ostensibly about recovering any revenue lost from advertisers fleeing the platform due to CCDH's reporting.
According to X's suit, CCDH documenting troubling levels of hate speech on the platform, and the appearance of such comments next to paid ads, was a scare campaign designed to chase brands away from Musk's digital town square. The suit alleges not that what CCDH said was incorrect or defamatory, but rather that the data it used to compile the report was obtained without authorization from Brandwatch, an X Corp data partner.
[6]
Breyer, however, wasn't sold on X's claim that the suit was about data collection.
"It is impossible to read the complaint and not conclude that X Corp is far more concerned about CCDH's speech than it is its data collection methods," the judge said. Breyer later noted that X's motivation for bringing the case was an "evident" move to punish CCDH for criticizing X and dissuade other organizations from doing the same.
X has filed a [7]similar lawsuit against the US-based Media Matters nonprofit for its reporting on similar hate speech on X since Musk took ownership, and has threatened to take similar action against the Anti Defamation League, which is similarly accused of killing X's advertising revenue.
[8]
The Media Matters lawsuit is ongoing, and was filed in a Texas federal district court.
[9]X fails to remove hate speech over Israel-Gaza conflict
[10]IBM pauses advertising on X after ads show up next to antisemitic content
[11]X marks the spot where free speech clashes with Californian transparency
[12]Musk tells advertisers to 'go f**k' themselves as $44B X gamble spirals into chaos
CCDH celebrated its win over Musk and his social network, [13]describing the ruling as sending "a strong message about seeking to censor those who criticize social media companies, which we are confident will resonate throughout Silicon Valley and beyond."
"The courts today have affirmed our fundamental right to research, to speak, to advocate, and to hold accountable social media companies for decisions they make behind closed doors that affect our kids, our democracy, and our fundamental human rights and civil liberties," CCDH founder and CEO Imran Ahmed said in a statement.
The CCDH also took the opportunity to argue for a federal corporate transparency law akin to those in the [14]UK , [15]EU and elsewhere, which encourage or improve the sharing and availability of business data for people to inspect and scrutinize.
"It is archly ironic that in his zeal to shut down criticism, Elon Musk made the most eloquent case ever for statutory transparency rules," Ahmed said. "We will continue to use all legal tools to protect independent research against malicious, retaliatory lawsuits from powerful vested interests."
X Corp v. CCDH is now a closed case, as Breyer decided not to give X a chance to amend its complaint, calling its request to do so "a dilatory move" designed to "force CCDH to spend more time and money defending itself before it can hope to get out from under this potentially ruinous litigation." Bryer said the CCDH had met the burden of proving X's suit was a SLAPP case, and that X was unlikely to prevail on its claims, even with an amended complaint.
X didn't respond to questions though it's believed the biz may try to appeal. ®
Get our [16]Tech Resources
[1] https://regmedia.co.uk/2024/03/25/twitter-ccdh-dismissal-order.pdf
[2] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_onprem/personaltech&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=2&c=2ZgICBfXVYeECSkMi2Pzi2wAAAAE&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D2%26raptor%3Dcondor%26pos%3Dtop%26test%3D0
[3] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_onprem/personaltech&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=4&c=44ZgICBfXVYeECSkMi2Pzi2wAAAAE&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D4%26raptor%3Dfalcon%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[4] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_onprem/personaltech&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=3&c=33ZgICBfXVYeECSkMi2Pzi2wAAAAE&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D3%26raptor%3Deagle%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[5] https://www.theregister.com/2023/08/01/x_corp_lawsuit_ccdh/
[6] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_onprem/personaltech&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=4&c=44ZgICBfXVYeECSkMi2Pzi2wAAAAE&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D4%26raptor%3Dfalcon%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[7] https://www.theregister.com/2023/11/21/x_sues_media_matters/
[8] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_onprem/personaltech&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=3&c=33ZgICBfXVYeECSkMi2Pzi2wAAAAE&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D3%26raptor%3Deagle%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[9] https://www.theregister.com/2023/11/14/x_israel_gaza_moderation/
[10] https://www.theregister.com/2023/11/17/ibm_pauses_advertising_on_x/
[11] https://www.theregister.com/2023/09/11/x_california_moderation_law/
[12] https://www.theregister.com/2023/11/30/musk_murders_x/
[13] https://counterhate.com/blog/elon-musk-vs-ccdh-nonprofit-wins-dismissal-of-baseless-and-intimidatory-lawsuit/
[14] https://bills.parliament.uk/bills/3339
[15] https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_23_1930
[16] https://whitepapers.theregister.com/
Re: Elmo Fails again!
Free speech, free as in ______ ?
Free as in free for me, not for you.
Re: Elmo Fails again!
How to test Elon Musk's free speech absolutism: #invadetaxhavens
Re: Elmo Fails again!
C'mon man... One is a muppet that helps teach young children valuable life lessons. The other is a drug-addicted narcissist who has no redeeming values so far as I can tell. Don't make Sesame Street have to sue you for defamation.
Free Speech
The only free speech Musk cares about is his own.
Re: Free Speech
Unfair. He also cares not to hear other people's free speech.
Costs
Did I miss the part where Twitter has to pay costs and an anti-SLAPP penalty?
Re: Costs
Yeah, I missed that too.
Re: Costs
Costs is usually a given when you are the losing party, but typically how it works is first a judge/jury decides which side is at fault. In this case, Xitter, which even a lay person could have seen coming as soon as the lawsuit was announced. Then, once it's established who is at fault, there's a separate hearing, or even trial, to determine damages. So, we're at Phase 1: We've identified the source of the stench: Xitter and Xitler (happy coincidence). Phase 2 will be determining what is required to wash it off, and that hasn't happened yet.
I am not exactly holding out hope, but it would be most excellent if the Xitter lawyers were sanctioned for even bringing this case in the first place. You don't need to be one of the finest legal minds to be able to figure out what the reason was for bringing this case. Xitler was throwing another man-baby tantrum because people were quantifying what was already clear to anyone paying even a little bit of attention: Xitter has become overrun with Nazis, white nationalists, antisemites, Russian and Chinese propaganda, *phobics, and just generally insufferable people. Understandably, a lot of companies don't want to be associated, even tangentially, with that kind of hate speech by having their ads show up next to it. Since Xitter either can't or won't take the necessary steps to ensure it no longer happens, these companies have chosen to take their advertising budget dollars elsewhere. Before CCDH and others started putting actual numbers and analysis to the issue, Xitler could always try to claim that it was just an oopsie and won't ever happen again even if absolutely nothing was actually done. Then, unless the company went to the hassle of tracking where every impression of their ads showed up, they'd probably just have to take Xitler at his word.
At the heart of this lawsuit is basically that Xitler was embarrassed personally. Maybe he also had nightmares involving bone saws when he saw the amount of red ink on the Xitter balance sheet get larger as every major advertiser left, but mostly it was his ego being bruised that brought about this lawsuit. Which is why the lawyers who filed it should absolutely be referred to the CA State Bar for potential disciplinary action. When your whole job is about cutting to the quick of any argument, it should have been blindingly obvious that this was a frivolous lawsuit, and as officers of the court, they should have refused to bring it. Assholes like this are the sort who give the hard working lawyers a bad rep. IANAL, lest anyone get the wrong impression. I just know that there are plenty of people in the profession who, may not exactly be the most pleasant of people (they literally get paid to argue all day), but they do an honest days work for their pay.
Tty this on for size, Mush--
You're an asshole; you always have been an asshole, and you always will be an asshole.
Will be glad to provide clarification if your reptilian-complex-only brain requires it (oops! You definitely need to get help with that five-syllable word, "clarification").
The only thing that would have made this better is if the suit had been dismissed with prejudice and the lawyer(s) who filed it be sanctioned for bringing an obviously frivolous lawsuit in the first place. As the judge pointed out, there's absolutely no question that this was an attempt to silence a critic and not any of other crap that they came up with as an afterthought in a piss-poor attempt to provide a pretext. We really need to start cracking down more on this shit. You start fining a few lawyers for wasting the court's time, and pretty soon the message will get out. That law license is a lot more valuable than any single client, no matter who they are.
So, cheers to the CCDH.
Result of Musk trying to sue people for pointing out he's allowed tons of filth on his site
1. Lots of news stories around the world about how he lost his case trying to silence his critics
2. A reminder to potential advertisers that there's tons of filth on his site
3. Self publicised reputation as "free speech absolutist" incinerated
4. Failure to get money back he's lost by hosting filth on his site, by suing his critics
All in all, a thoroughly poor set of outcomes for Mr Strategic Business Genius there.
I wonder what his reaction was? To send the judge a poop emoji?
Elmo Fails again!
Elmo: "Free speech!"
Also Elmo: "Not like that!"
Court: "Yes, like that."