Tech mogul Elon Musk, a self-described champion of free speech, stated in an interview with Don Lemon on X last year that content moderation, which he would later confront as X’s owner, is “maddening.”
Since purchasing Twitter in 2022, Musk has declared his commitment to defending free speech in America, taking his arguments to courts across the country and the world.
On Tuesday, Musk’s X Corp. filed a lawsuit against New York Attorney General Letitia James, contending that the state’s Stop Hiding Hate Act (S895B), set to take effect this week, violates both the U.S. and New York constitutions.
The law mandates that social media companies submit biannual reports on their content moderation practices, specifically detailing their handling of hate speech, extremism, disinformation, harassment, and foreign political interference.
X Corp. asserts that these reports represent an unacceptable attempt by New York to interfere with the content moderation process.
The lawsuit argues, “Deciding what content should appear on a social media platform is a question that engenders considerable debate among reasonable people about where to draw the correct proverbial line. This is not a role that the government may play.”
Why is X suing New York?
S895B requires social media platforms operating in New York to publish clear terms of service and allows users to challenge these terms and the process of flagging content they believe violates them.
X Corp.’s complaint challenges the law’s requirement for companies to submit semi-annual reports on their “content moderation practices,” including their response to user reports on flagged content and their methods for removing content that violates the terms of service.
The complaint argues that these required disclosures violate the First Amendment by compelling companies to reveal “how their editorial processes work.” It further claims that forcing these “politically charged” disclosures is an attempt to “generate public controversy about content moderation in a way that will pressure social media companies, such as X Corp., to restrict, limit, disfavor, or censor certain constitutionally protected content on X that the State dislikes.”
X Corp. seeks to have the disclosure requirements, including the $15,000-per-day civil penalty for violations, declared null and void.
State Senator Brad Hoylman-Sigal and Assemblymember Grace Lee, the bill’s sponsors, stated in a that they are confident Musk’s challenge will fail, adding, “The fact that Elon Musk would go to these lengths to avoid disclosing straightforward information to New Yorkers as required by our statute illustrates exactly why we need the Stop Hiding Hate Act.”
What are Musk’s other legal battles against content moderation?
This isn’t Musk’s first legal entanglement over content moderation.
X Corp. previously challenged a similar 2022 California law, which its latest complaint describes as a “carbon copy” of the New York law. In September 2024, a federal appeals court that California’s content moderation requirements violated free speech laws. (X Corp.’s New York complaint notes that the New York legislature “failed” to revise its legislation after the ruling on the California policy.) In February, California reached , eliminating key provisions of the law that mandated disclosures on how platforms define and moderate problematic content.
X Corp. has also recently challenged Minnesota’s on using deepfakes to influence elections. In April, X Corp. that such a ban “would criminalize innocuous, election-related speech, including humor, and make social media platforms criminally liable for not censoring such speech.”
Musk’s fight extends beyond the U.S.: last August, Brazil blocked X after it failed to comply with orders to block user accounts accused of spreading misinformation. Musk such “draconian” orders, criticized the judge responsible, and argued that “principles matter more than profit.” However, X Corp. eventually relented and in October after .
The European Union is also reportedly preparing to impose penalties on X for violating its Digital Services Act (DSA), following in late 2023. According to the , X is also facing a second E.U. inquiry alleging that its content policing approach has transformed it into a hub for illegal hate speech, disinformation, and other material that undermines democracy within the bloc.
How has Musk approached free speech on X?
Shortly after acquiring X, Musk the platform’s Trust and Safety Council. The platform has also suspended that have against Musk, and has reportedly to websites that Musk dislikes. In 2023, X Corp. sued the watchdog Center for Countering Digital Hate, which documented an increase in hate speech on X since his takeover, though a eventually dismissed that suit on the grounds that Musk was attempting to limit the nonprofit’s “speech.”
The increase in hate speech on Musk’s platform was among the reasons Hoylman-Sigal and Lee cited for rejecting requests from X representatives to meet, stating in a that “they did not believe that X wanted to meet in good faith to improve the bill, but would rather look to weaken it.”
“`
