Judge Hands Elon Musk’s X A Win In Lawsuit Against California's Content-Moderation Law | ZeroHedge
https://www.zerohedge.com/markets/judge-hands-elon-musks-x-win-lawsuit-against-californias-content-moderation-law
An Appellate Court has BLOCKED a CALIFORNIA LAW Challenged by X Corp., which accused the State of FREE SPEECH VIOLATIONS!
A Federal Appeals Court has Granted X Corp.’s request to BLOCK Part of a CALIFORNIA State LAW that REQUIRES Social Media Platforms to DISCLOSE Their CONTENT MODERATION and Anti-Hate Speech Policies.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued an Order on Sept. 4 that Grants X Corp.’s request for a Preliminary Injunction and REVERSES a District Court’s ruling AGAINST the Elon Musk-owned Social Media Company in a LEGAL CHALLENGE to CALIFORNIA’s Assembly Bill (AB) 587.
The Court said the Bill’s CONTENT-MODERATION Provisions are Not Narrowly Tailored to Serve CALIFORNIA’s Purported Goal of REQUIRING Social Media Companies to be Transpa
Yeshua🩸✝️ Mrs LuAnn Aalvik♥️ BereanWatchman Aleph/א Tav/ת #Gospel🎶 #CiC 👉#TrumpWon #19 NoVax! ORPatriot IFBAP💯
The Court said the Bill’s CONTENT-MODERATION Provisions are Not Narrowly Tailored to Serve CALIFORNIA’s Purported Goal of REQUIRING Social Media Companies to be Transparent about Their CONTENT-RELATED Practices, and may amount to Unconstitutionally Compelled Speech.
“The Panel held that X Corp. was likely to Succeed on the Merits of Its Claim that the Content Category Report Provisions facially VIOLATE the First Amendment,” the Appeals Court Judges Wrote in Their Opinion.
AB 587 Requires LARGE Social Media Companies to POST Their TERMS of SERVICE and to SUBMIT Periodic REPORTS to the CALIFORNIA Attorney General’s Office about Their CONTENT-MODERATION Practices and Policies.
A KEY Provision of the BILL Requires a Semiannual Report Detailing HOW the Platforms Define👉 SIX CATEGORIES of CONTENT: (1) HATE SPEECH or RACISM; (2) EXTREMISM or RADICALIZATION; (3) DISINFORMATION and MISINFORMATION; (4) HARASSMENT; (5) FOREIGN POLITICAL INTERFERENCE; (6) and CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE DI
Yeshua🩸✝️ Mrs LuAnn Aalvik♥️ BereanWatchman Aleph/א Tav/ת #Gospel🎶 #CiC 👉#TrumpWon #19 NoVax! ORPatriot IFBAP💯
HOW the Platforms Define👉 SIX CATEGORIES of CONTENT: (1) HATE SPEECH or RACISM; (2) EXTREMISM or RADICALIZATION; (3) DISINFORMATION and MISINFORMATION; (4) HARASSMENT; (5) FOREIGN POLITICAL INTERFERENCE; (6) and CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE DISTRIBUTION.
X Corp. Argued in Its Lawsuit, which Named CALIFORNIA Attorney General Robert Bonta as Defendant, that the LAW Intends to PRESSURE Social Media Companies to CENSOR Content that the GOVERNMENT Deems OBJECTIONABLE and IMPROPERLY COMPELS SPEECH in VIOLATION of the First Amendment.
“The Legislative Record is Crystal Clear that One of the Main Purposes of AB 587—if NOT the MAIN Purpose—is to PRESSURE Social Media Companies to ELIMINATE or MINIMIZE CONTENT that the GOVERNMENT has DEEMED OBJECTIONABLE,” X Corp. Attorneys Argued in Their Complaint.
