Social media giant X, owned by Elon Musk, has filed a lawsuit challenging a new New York state law that mandates how platforms address hate speech and other controversial content. The company argues the “Stop Hiding Hate Act” violates constitutional free speech protections.
The lawsuit, lodged in federal court in Manhattan on a Tuesday, names New York Attorney General Letitia James, the official tasked with enforcing the statute, as the primary defendant.
Understanding the “Stop Hiding Hate Act”
Signed into law by Governor Kathy Hochul in December and set to take effect shortly, the “Stop Hiding Hate Act” (bill S895B) requires major social media companies to increase transparency regarding their content moderation efforts. Specifically, the law compels platforms like X to:
Publicly disclose their policies and specific methods for monitoring and addressing categories like hate speech, extremism, racism, radicalization, disinformation, misinformation, harassment, and foreign political interference.
Clearly explain their terms of service to users.
Submit detailed, often semiannual, reports to the Attorney General’s office outlining steps taken to eliminate hate and reporting on progress, including data on flagged posts, actions taken, and the extent of content views/shares.
The law’s sponsors, State Senator Brad Hoylman-Sigal and Assemblymember Grace Lee, who developed the bill in cooperation with the Anti-Defamation League (ADL), framed it as essential for accountability, transparency, and providing New Yorkers with security online. Non-compliant companies face potential civil fines of up to $15,000 per violation per day.
X’s Constitutional Challenge
X contends that the New York law is an unconstitutional overreach that infringes upon rights guaranteed by the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, and potentially the New York State Constitution as well. The company argues that the Act forces platforms to disclose “highly sensitive and controversial speech” or “politically charged disclosures” that are, or may be, protected under the constitution but disfavored by the state.
The lawsuit asserts that the law compels X into engaging in specific, non-commercial speech subject to a higher standard of First Amendment protection. X also argues the state is improperly interfering in the platform’s editorial decisions and is attempting to generate public pressure to restrict content the state dislikes, even if that content is lawful. Furthermore, X’s filing suggests the state law is preempted by Section 230 of the federal Communications Decency Act, which provides immunity for third-party content and discretion in moderation.
“Deciding what content is acceptable on social media platforms ‘engenders considerable debate among reasonable people about where to draw the correct proverbial line,'” X stated in its filing, adding, “‘This is not a role that the government may play.'” X is seeking a court order to prevent the law’s enforcement.
Setting Precedent: The California Case
X’s legal challenge in New York mirrors a successful battle the company waged against a nearly identical law, Assembly Bill 587 (AB 587), in California last year. That California law also required large social media companies to submit reports on their content moderation policies regarding hate speech and extremism.
In the California case, a panel of federal appellate judges granted X a preliminary injunction, temporarily blocking portions of the law’s content-moderation reporting requirements on First Amendment grounds. California subsequently reached a settlement with X in February, agreeing not to enforce those specific disclosure provisions. X extensively cited this victory against AB 587 in its New York lawsuit, criticizing state lawmakers for not revising the “Stop Hiding Hate Act’s” language despite the outcome in California.
Context: Content Moderation at X Under Musk
The legal clash arrives amidst ongoing scrutiny of content moderation practices on X since Elon Musk acquired the platform in 2022. Critics argue that Musk, while publicly championing himself as a “free speech absolutist,” has significantly scaled back the rules governing acceptable content and behavior and dramatically reduced the resources dedicated to enforcing the rules that remain.
Changes under Musk’s leadership have included disbanding the company’s Trust and Safety advisory group, altering enforcement of hate speech rules, and restoring accounts of previously banned figures. Watchdog groups, including the Center for Countering Digital Hate and Media Matters, have documented an increase in hate speech, harassment, and spam on the platform following these changes – observations also noted by experts like Professor Laura Edelson of Northeastern University. X has previously filed lawsuits against* some of these research organizations, including one dismissed by a federal judge as an attempt to punish free speech.
A recent Reuters Institute report highlighted the growing reliance on social media sites, including X, as the primary source of news for Americans, amplifying concerns about the content circulating on these platforms.
Reactions and Justification for the Law
The sponsors of the “Stop Hiding Hate Act” swiftly rejected X’s lawsuit. In a statement, Senator Hoylman-Sigal and Assemblymember Lee characterized social media companies like X as “cesspools of hate speech” and firmly asserted that their law does not violate the First Amendment. They stated that platforms “have consistently failed to inform the public about their policies regarding hatred and misinformation.”
The lawmakers specifically cited what they described as the “disturbing record” of X and Elon Musk, arguing it “threatens the foundations of our democracy.” They called X’s lawsuit an attempt to “use the First Amendment as a shield against providing New Yorkers with much needed transparency.” They also revealed they had previously rejected a request from X to discuss and amend the bill last year, believing the company was not acting in good faith.
In the current climate, marked by a “rise in political violence and threats emanating from the spread of hate speech and disinformation,” New Yorkers are entitled to know what platforms are doing to combat hate, the sponsors added.
Neither the New York Attorney General’s office nor X provided immediate comment to the BBC regarding the lawsuit. The outcome of this legal challenge could have significant implications for how states regulate social media platforms’ content moderation practices.
