1. A US judge dismissed a lawsuit filed by X, stating it aimed at “punishing the defendants for their speech.”
  2. X had pursued millions in damages from a research group uncovering an increase in hate speech on X’s platform.
  3. X CEO Elon Musk characterized a comparable “thermonuclear” lawsuit as a move to “protect free speech.”

Last year, a lawsuit initiated by Elon Musk’s X against a research group faced its conclusion as US District Judge Charles Breyer threw it out on Monday, emphasizing, “This case revolves around penalizing the Defendants for their expression.”

In its legal action filed in the Northern District of California, X contended that the nonprofit Center for Countering Digital Hate (CCDH) had violated the platform’s terms of service by collecting data for reports that highlighted a notable surge in hate speech on X subsequent to Musk’s assumption of control.

X asserted that CCDH’s actions had caused “tens of millions of dollars” in damages, citing losses in advertising revenue and the expenses incurred for internal investigations.

However, Judge Breyer underscored that the true intent behind the lawsuit was unmistakably aimed at intimidating X’s critics into silence.

Meanwhile, amidst such legal maneuvers, Indeed is actively embracing AI to foster a more equitable work environment for all. Here are four distinctive ways in which the platform is addressing the ethical implications surrounding the use of artificial intelligence.

When questioned about the court’s ruling, a representative from X’s press team responded with a brief message: “Sorry, we’re tied up at the moment. Can you follow up later?”

Elon Musk, known for his staunch advocacy of free speech, has reiterated his stance as a “free speech absolutist.” He has previously described his aggressive legal actions against media watchdog groups as crucial for “protecting free speech.”

In a scathing critique of X’s lawsuit, Judge Breyer emphasized that the crux of the matter was CCDH exercising its First Amendment rights, despite X’s attempts to divert attention with arguments concerning data privacy and security.

In its complaint, X aimed to recoup lost advertising revenue it attributed to CCDH’s reports, yet refrained from disputing the facts presented in those reports.

Judge Breyer remarked, “It is clear that X Corp. wants to have it both ways,” highlighting the company’s desire to avoid the burden of proving a defamation claim while lamenting damage to its reputation and seeking substantial damages based on reputational harm.

Adding to this, he noted in a footnote, “If there is any doubt about the ‘punishing’ aspect,” referencing X Corp.’s similar lawsuit against Media Matters in November 2023, concerning the exposure of major brands’ ads alongside neo-Nazi content.

In response, CCDH CEO and founder Imran Ahmed stated that the lawsuit was part of Elon Musk’s “loud, hypocritical campaign of harassment, abuse, and lawfare aimed at evading accountability for his own decisions.”

By Tom Brokaw

Hello, I'm journalist and author of the "insiderbez.com"

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *