\n<\/p>\n
A lawsuit aimed at punishing critics of Elon Musk\u2019s X will go forward, thanks to a ruling from a judge with a financial interest in Musk\u2019s success.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n
On Thursday, Judge Reed O\u2019Connor denied a motion<\/a> to dismiss X\u2019s lawsuit against Media Matters For America (MMFA). The suit was filed in Texas last year<\/a> and alleges that MMFA should be held legally liable for negative reporting that caused companies to pull ads from X. O\u2019Connor dismissed objections that it was filed in a state where neither X nor MMFA is headquartered, saying the fact that MMFA \u201ctargeted\u201d two X Texas-based advertisers \u2014\u00a0Oracle and AT&T \u2014 by mentioning them in articles and interviews is sufficient. (X is based in California, though its current San Francisco office will soon close<\/a> and Musk has discussed moving to Texas.)<\/p>\n<\/div>\n O\u2019Connor also determined that X\u2019s claims had enough merit to proceed in court \u2014 which is, to put it gently, concerning.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n X wants to make being too negative about a company illegal, and a judge apparently sees nothing wrong with that<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n Unlike your standard libel lawsuit, X doesn\u2019t say MMFA made a factually incorrect claim; it outright admits that X served ads against racist or otherwise offensive content. Instead, it argues that this situation is rare and the authors \u201cdeliberately misused the X platform to induce the algorithm to pair racist content with popular advertisers\u2019 brands.\u201d What constitutes misuse of a platform? Using accounts that had been active for more than a month, following the accounts of racists and major brands, and \u201cendlessly scrolling and refreshing\u201d to get new ads. In other words, X isn\u2019t suing MMFA for lying \u2014 it\u2019s suing them for seeking out bad things about a business and not reporting those things in a sufficiently positive light.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n This is a painfully tortured argument<\/a> aimed at establishing that private citizens pushing private businesses to avoid buying ads on a website is illegal censorship. Contra numerous promises<\/a> that Musk is a \u201cfree speech absolutist,\u201d it\u2019s leaning on the legal system to shut down criticism instead of simply answering it with more facts. The ruling doesn\u2019t technically agree with X\u2019s claims; it says MMFA presents a \u201ccompelling alternative version\u201d of events by pointing out it\u2019s not lying. But O\u2019Connor says it\u2019s not his job to \u201cchoose among competing inferences,\u201d so both versions can get argued at a later stage. MMFA declined to comment on the ruling.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n It\u2019s a striking contrast with the outcome of yet another lawsuit that X filed against its critics. In California, Judge Charles Breyer dismissed a complaint<\/a> against the Center for Countering Digital Hate, where X used different but equally tortured legal reasoning to attack claims that it wasn\u2019t addressing hateful conduct. \u201cAlthough X Corp accuses CCDH of trying \u2018to censor viewpoints\u2019 … it is X Corp that demands \u2018at least tens of millions of dollars\u2019 in damages \u2014\u00a0presumably enough to torpedo the operations of a small nonprofit \u2014\u00a0because of the views expressed in the nonprofit\u2019s publications,\u201d it reads, in an observation that could apply equally to MMFA. Elsewhere, the judge is even blunter: \u201cthis case is about punishing the defendants for their speech.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/div>\n