Elon Musk's X sues New York to block social media hate speech law
By Jonathan Stempel
NEW YORK (Reuters) -Elon Musk's X Corp sued New York on Tuesday, challenging the constitutionality of a state law requiring social media companies to disclose how they monitor hate speech, extremism, disinformation, harassment and foreign political interference.
X said the law known as the Stop Hiding Hate Act violated the First Amendment and state constitution by subjecting it to lawsuits and heavy fines unless it disclosed "highly sensitive and controversial speech" that New York may find objectionable.
Deciding what content is acceptable on social media platforms "engenders considerable debate among reasonable people about where to draw the correct proverbial line," X said. "This is not a role that the government may play."
The complaint filed in Manhattan federal court also quoted a letter from two legislators who sponsored the law, which said X and Musk in particular had a "disturbing record" on content moderation "that threatens the foundations of our democracy."
New York Attorney General Letitia James, a Democrat who enforces the state's laws, is the named defendant in X's lawsuit. Her office did not immediately respond to requests for comment.
Musk, the world's richest person and recently a close adviser to Republican President Donald Trump, has described himself as a free speech absolutist.
He did away with the content moderation policy of Twitter, as X was previously known, after he bought the company for $44 billion in October 2022.
New York's law requires social media companies to disclose steps they take to eliminate hate on their platforms, and to report their progress. Civil fines could reach $15,000 per violation per day.
The law was written by state Senator Brad Hoylman-Sigal and Assemblymember Grace Lee, both Democrats, with help from the Anti-Defamation League. It was signed in December by Governor Kathy Hochul, also a Democrat.
X said New York based its law on a nearly identical 2023 California law whose enforcement was partially blocked by a federal appeals court last September because of free speech concerns.
California agreed in a February settlement with X not to enforce the law's disclosure requirements.
A spokesman for Hoylman-Sigal had no immediate comment. Lee's office did not immediately respond to requests for comment.
The case is X Corp v James, U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York, No. 25-05068.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
23 minutes ago
Lawmakers aim to stop U.S. from joining Israel's military campaign against Iran
As Israel and Iran continue to trade strikes in the Middle East, lawmakers are set to introduce bills and resolution aimed at preventing the United States from getting involved in Israel's military campaign against Iran. While the efforts are in their early stages, the legislation is unlikely to garner sufficient support to override the will of President Donald Trump and his supportive Republican majorities in both chambers of Congress. Democratic Sen. Tim Kaine, a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, on Monday introduced a resolution he says will "prevent war with Iran" as he expresses concern at the idea that the U.S may get involved in Israel's campaign against Iran. 'It is not in our national security interest to get into a war with Iran unless that war is absolutely necessary to defend the United States. I am deeply concerned that the recent escalation of hostilities between Israel and Iran could quickly pull the United States into another endless conflict,' Kaine, D-Va., said. 'The American people have no interest in sending service members to fight another forever war in the Middle East. This resolution will ensure that if we decide to place our nation's men and women in uniform into harm's way, we will have a debate and vote on it in Congress.' Separately, Vermont independent Sen. Bernie Sanders introduced the No War Against Iran Act on Monday to "prohibit the use of federal funds for any use of military force in or against Iran absent specific Congressional authorization." Sanders has several co-sponsors including Democratic Sens. Peter Welch of Vermont, Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts, Jeff Merkley of Oregon, Chris Van Hollen of Maryland, Ed Markey of Massachusetts, Tammy Baldwin of Wisconsin, and Tina Smith of Minnesota. '[Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin] Netanyahu's reckless and illegal attacks violate international law and risk igniting a regional war. Congress must make it clear that the United States will not be dragged into Netanyahu's war of choice,' Sanders wrote in a statement. 'Our Founding Fathers entrusted the power of war and peace exclusively to the people's elected representatives in Congress, and it is imperative that we make clear that the President has no authority to embark on another costly war without explicit authorization by Congress.' Senate Majority Leader John Thune avoided saying whether he would put Kaine's resolution on the Senate floor when asked on Tuesday. He said that any action on the matter would be 'getting the cart ahead of the horse,' but that there could be a more 'fulsome discussion' later on what the role of Congress should be amid the conflict. 'This is something that's happened the last few days. I think the President is perfectly within his authority in the steps that he has taken. You know clearly, if this thing were to extend for some period of time, there could be a more fulsome discussion about what the role of Congress should be, and and and whether or not we need to take action,' Thune said. A resolution is a statement or expression of a sentiment that, if passed, has no legal authority. An act has legal authority, but even if passed by the Republican-controlled Congress, it would have to be signed into law by Trump. In the House, Kentucky Republican Thomas Massie joined California Democrat Ro Khanna to introduce a bipartisan War Powers resolution on Tuesday meant to ensure that Congress asserts its constitutional authority to declare war under 50 U.S. Code Ch. 33. "This is not our war. But if it were, Congress must decide such matters according to our Constitution," Massie said. "I'm introducing a bipartisan War Powers Resolution tomorrow to prohibit our involvement. I invite all members of Congress to cosponsor this resolution." Khanna, one of the bill's initial cosponsors, quote tweeted Massie's post, calling for "No war in Iran," and equating the current situation in Iran to Operation Iraqi Freedom, the 2003 invasion of Iraq. "No war in Iran. It's time for every member to go on record. Are you with the neocons who led us into Iraq or do you stand with the American people?" Khanna posted. "I am proud to co-lead this bipartisan War Powers Resolution with Rep. Massie that is privileged and must receive a vote," Shortly after Massie's and Khanna's posts, New York Democratic Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and fellow Squad member Rashida Tlaib of Michigan expressed their support for the effort. Ocasio-Cortez, in a reply to Massie, said that she would be "signing on," to the resolution. In her post, Tlaib, said that the American people wouldn't fall for "it" again, contrasting today's debate on Iran's nuclear capabilities to October of 2002, when Congress approved a bipartisan Authorization for the Use of Military Force ahead of the 2003 invasion of Iraq. "I look forward to supporting this War Powers Resolution. The American people aren't falling for it again," Tlaib said. "We were lied to about "weapons of mass destruction" in Iraq that killed millions (plus) forever changed lives. It's (unconstitutional) for Trump to go to war without a vote in Congress."
23 minutes ago
Ohio lawmakers to introduce bill banning abortion, criminalizing the procedure
Republican lawmakers in Ohio are planning on introducing a bill on Wednesday that would ban almost all abortions and criminalize the procedure. The " Ohio Prenatal Equal Protection Act" would overturn the amendment to the Ohio constitution, voted on in 2023, that establishes "an individual right to one's own reproductive medical treatment, including but not limited to abortion" before viability. Reproductive medical treatment includes contraception, fertility treatments and miscarriage care. Abortions are currently allowed up to 20 weeks since fertilization, according to the Guttmacher Institute, a research group that studies sexual and reproductive rights. "[It] is a very, very simple and beautiful piece of legislation in that all it does is identify all human beings as persons deserving equal protection of the law, both born humans and pre-born humans," anti-abortion advocate Austin Beigel, with End Abortion Ohio, told ABC News. "So, it identifies those personhood rights starting at the moment of fertilization, when the new distinct organism is formed, the new human life that being that person now has equal protection under the law." Kellie Copeland, executive director of Abortion Forward, which helped pass the 2023 amendment in Ohio, said the bill goes against the will of voters. "This is the most extreme and anti-life legislation that you can imagine," she told ABC News. "It would strip Ohioans of their constitutionally guaranteed right to bodily autonomy, and that's the goal of this legislation." When Beigel was asked if he was concerned that the bill may go against the will of the voters, he said he was not because "the will of the voters was evil." "In many times in our country's history, the majority of people have desired evil things. We have discriminated horribly against the Black man and woman, and people wanted that," he continued. "So, I have no qualms about saying I oppose the majority of the will of the people when the people desire something that is evil." Copeland replied that "subjecting people to the loss of bodily autonomy, taking basic human rights away from Ohioans is the real evil that we're talking about here." Beigel said he has been working with Republican state Reps. Levi Dean and Jonathan Newman on the bill, which uses the U.S. Constitution's equal protection clause -- part of the Fourteenth Amendment -- to override Ohio's constitutional amendment. Beigel said the co-sponsors will be announced on Wednesday. Dean's and Newman's offices did not immediately return ABC News' request for comment. The bill would ban abortion with no exceptions for rape or incest. The only exceptions would be for a spontaneous miscarriage or to save the life of the pregnant woman. The bill would also criminalize those who have abortions, not just the providers who perform the procedure. Copeland she is worried the bill could lead to attacks on people who support abortion rights or who underwent abortions. "When people equate reproductive health care with murder, that kind of rhetoric invites violence," Copeland said. "It invites violence that we have seen at abortion clinics that we have seen perpetrated against abortion providers." Beigel said the bill does not outlaw contraception and is not designed to outlaw in-vitro fertilization (IVF). However, he did say that IVF may not be able to function the way that it does now if the bill is passed because it would apply equal protection to "pre-born humans." "The courts are going to have to debate the implications of this," he said. "Is it actually moral to freeze a young human being in a cryochamber and preserve them at the age they are and not let them grow?" Ohio's history of abortion bills In 2019, Ohio lawmakers passed a so-called heartbeat bill that bans abortions after cardiac activity can be detected, which occurs as early as six weeks of pregnancy, before many women know they're pregnant. It was signed into law by Gov. Mike DeWine. The ban had no exceptions for rape or incest. The only exceptions were cases of ectopic pregnancies and to prevent the mother's death or impairment of a major bodily function. A federal judge blocked the ban in 2019, but it was reinstated just hours after the Supreme Court decision to overrule Roe v. Wade. In September 2022, an Ohio lower court granted a temporary restraining order before granting a preliminary injunction a few weeks later. In December 2023, the state's Supreme Court dismissed the state's appeal and sent the case back to the lower courts. In November 2023, 57% of voters approved the passing of the amendment, adding abortion protections to the state constitution. Much of the six-week ban was rendered unconstitutional after the amendment went into effect in December 2023, Ohio's Attorney General Dave Yost said earlier this year. However, some lawmakers have tried to maintain other parts of the ban, including reporting requirements and a 24-hour waiting period before an abortion can be administered. An Ohio judge in August 2024.
Chicago Tribune
26 minutes ago
- Chicago Tribune
Vernon Hills-based toy company challenges Trump's tariffs before the Supreme Court
WASHINGTON — A north suburban toy company challenged President Donald Trump's tariffs in front of the Supreme Court on Tuesday in a long shot bid to press the justices to quickly decide whether they are legal. Learning Resources Inc., based in Vernon Hills, filed an appeal asking the Supreme Court to take up the case soon rather than let it continue to play out in lower courts. The company argues the Republican president illegally imposed tariffs under an emergency powers law rather than getting approval from Congress. While the company won an early victory in a lower court, the order is on hold as an appeals court considers a similar ruling putting a broader block on Trump's tariffs. The appeals court has allowed Trump to continue collecting tariffs under the emergency powers law ahead of arguments set for late July. The company argued in court documents the case can't wait that long, 'in light of the tariffs' massive impact on virtually every business and consumer across the Nation, and the unremitting whiplash caused by the unfettered tariffing power the President claims.' The Supreme Court is typically reluctant to take up cases before appeals courts have decided them, lowering the odds that the justices will agree to hear it as quickly as the company is asking. Still, Learning Resources CEO Rick Woldenberg said tariffs and uncertainty are taking a major toll now. He's looking ahead to the back-to-school and holiday seasons, when the company usually makes most of its sales for the year. 'All the people that are raising their prices are doing it with a sense of dread,' Woldenberg told The Associated Press. But, 'we do not have a choice. We absolutely do not have a choice.' Attorneys for Learning Resources and sister company hand2mind, suggested the court could hear arguments by the next term in early fall. The Trump administration has defended the tariffs by arguing that the emergency powers law gives the president the authority to regulate imports during national emergencies and that the country's longtime trade deficit qualifies as a national emergency. Trump has framed tariffs as a tool to lure factories back to America, raise money for the Treasury Department and strike more favorable trade agreements with other countries. Woldenberg said he's putting 'enormous resources' into shifting his company's supply base but the process is time-consuming and uncertain. 'I think that our case raises uniquely important questions that this administration won't accept unless the Supreme Court rules on them,' he said. The family-owned company's products include the Pretend & Play Calculator Cash Register for $43.99 and Botley the Coding Robot for $57.99.
