Federal Judge Upholds California Law Mandating X Disclose Content Moderation Policies

Elon Musk, chief executive Officer of SpaceX and Tesla and owner of X, formerly known as Twitter, attends the Viva Technology conference dedicated to innovation and startups at the Porte de Versailles exhibition center in Paris, France, on June 16, 2023. Gonzalo Fuentes/Reuters

On Thursday, a federal judge in California dealt a blow to Elon Musk’s X platform, formerly Twitter, ruling against the company’s bid to block a state law mandating the public disclosure of its content moderation policies.

The decision, delivered by U.S. District Judge William Shubb, rejects X’s claim that the law infringes on its free speech rights under both the U.S. Constitution and the California Constitution.

X, formerly Twitter, filed a lawsuit in September, challenging the constitutionality of California Assembly Bill 587, signed into law a year ago by Gov. Gavin Newsom, a Democrat. The company argued that the law imposed unjustified burdens on its editorial judgments and violated its right to decide what content it would or wouldn’t allow on its platform.

In an eight-page decision, U.S. District Judge William Shubb acknowledged the compliance burden placed on social media companies by the mandate but deemed it justified.

“While the reporting requirement does appear to place a substantial compliance burden on social media companies, it does not appear that the requirement is unjustified or unduly burdensome within the context of First Amendment law,” Judge Shubb wrote, reported Reuters.

The judge held that the “terms of service” requirements are integral, suggesting that they could significantly influence user decisions. A scheduling conference with the lawyers in the case is reportedly set for Feb. 26, 2024.

California Assembly Bill 587 empowers the state to dictate the terms of service for large social media companies like X, mandating the inclusion of content moderation-related terms.

A second provision in the law requires X to submit semi-annual “terms of service reports” to the California attorney general, disclosing detailed information about content moderation practices; definitions for hate speech, extremism, disinformation, harassment, and foreign political interference; and statistics related to actions taken to moderate various categories of content.

Supporters of the law argue that it serves as a tool to combat online hate and holds social media platforms accountable for user-generated content. California has described the law as a “transparency measure” that aims to make content moderation policies and statistics publicly accessible.

Mr. Newsom, upon signing the law, said, “California will not stand by as social media is weaponized to spread hate and disinformation that threaten our communities and foundational values as a country.”

He added, “Californians deserve to know how these platforms are impacting our public discourse, and this action brings much-needed transparency and accountability to the policies that shape the social media content we consume every day.”

X, however, has challenged this characterization, pointing to legislative history and statements from the law’s authors and proponents as evidence of its alleged true intent.

Law Designed to ‘Eliminate’ Disfavored Views, Says X

X argued in its complaint that the law violates its First Amendment right to “not speak about controversial topics” and self-determine what it will and won’t say.

“[The law] impermissibly interferes with the constitutionally-protected editorial judgments of companies such as X Corp., has both the purpose and likely effect of pressuring companies such as X Corp. to remove, demonetize, or deprioritize constitutionally-protected speech that the State deems undesirable or harmful, and places an unjustified and undue burden on social media companies such as X Corp,” the lawsuit stated.

The company asserted that the law is designed to pressure social media platforms to “eliminate” content deemed undesirable or harmful by the state, thereby interfering with constitutionally protected speech.

In its lawsuit, X cited a quote from a California Assembly Committee on Judiciary Report, dated April 27, 2021, which states: “If social media companies are forced to disclose what they do in this regard [i.e., how they moderate online content], it may pressure them to become better corporate citizens by doing more to eliminate hate speech and disinformation.”

The lawsuit also contended that the law imposed an undue burden on interstate commerce, with reporting requirements extending beyond California residents and having “national implications.”

Furthermore, X claimed that the law conflicted with Section 230 of the U.S. Code, which provides immunity to social media companies for actions taken in good faith to restrict access to objectionable material.

The Epoch Times has contacted X’s attorney for comment.