Judge throws out Musk's lawsuit against anti-extremism watchdog who denounced Nazis on Twitter

A judge On Monday, it granted a motion to dismiss a lawsuit by X Corp. — the company formerly known as Twitter — against the Center to Counter Digital Hate (CCDH), an anti-extremism watchdog. The team had drawn the ire of the company's owner, Elon Musk, by sharing research that revealed how racist and hateful content had exploded on the platform since its acquisition in 2022. Musk's lawsuit, filed in July 2023, alleged that CCDH was responsible for an advertiser exit from the site.

“Sometimes it is not clear what gives rise to a litigation, and only by reading between the lines of a complaint can one attempt to surmise the plaintiff's true purpose,” Senior U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer wrote in 52 page decision. “At other times, a complaint is so brazenly and vociferously about a thing that that purpose cannot be mistaken. This case represents the latter circumstance. This case is about punishing defendants for their speech.”

CCDH had moved to fight X's claims under California's Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation (SLAPP), which is intended to limit bullying lawsuits by individuals or entities trying to silence critics, and a proposal for the complete dismissal of the case. Breyer agreed with both, also ruling that X could no longer amend her testimony to prolong the case.

The ruling marks a major legal defeat for Musk, who, despite claiming to be a champion of “free speech,” has tried to silence the team for accurately reporting X's moderation struggles. He has continued to share such data in the months since. the filing of the lawsuit: In November, CCDH found that X failed to remove 98 percent posts related to the Israel-Hamas conflict that violated the platform's own rules on misinformation and hate speech.

In a Feb. 29 hearing on CCDH's proposals, Breyer took a skeptical view of X's argument, which was based on the assumption that the agency had violated X's rules by “scraping” information from the site and to threaten user security, at one point calling it “useless”. .” As for the company's financial damages, Breyer also noted that it was “significant” that X chose not to file a defamation case to hold CCDH liable. To prove defamation, X would have to prove that CCDH's reports were untrue.

Breyer brought up the issue of defamation in his ruling. “The Court also notes that the motive of X Corp. for pursuing this case is obvious,” he wrote. “X Corp. brought this case to punish CCDH for CCDH posts that criticized X Corp. — and perhaps to deter others who might want to make such criticisms.” Breyer concluded: “If CCDH's publications were defamatory, that would be one thing, but X Corp. he carefully avoided saying that he is.'

“Throughout Elon Musk's loud, hypocritical campaign of harassment, abuse and legal action designed to avoid taking responsibility for his own decisions, CCDH has remained quietly confident in the quality and integrity of our investigation and advocacy,” said CCDH managing director Imran Ahmed. statement on Monday. “It is now clear that we need federal transparency laws, as the EU, UK and many other jurisdictions come into force, to protect the public's right to know about the platforms that shape so much of our public discourse and democracy. It's terribly ironic that in his zeal to shut down criticism, Elon Musk has made the most eloquent case ever for legislative transparency rules.”

At X, Musk previously referred to CCDH as “bad propaganda machine“that”he just wants to destroy the first amendment under the guise of doing good“, and claimed that it is “psy ops”, or covert psychological intervention. As of press time, Musk has yet to tweet about the collapse of his company's lawsuit against CCDH.