The judge wrote, “The reports required by AB 587 are purely factual.”
According to The Verge, a federal judge in California has rejected Elon Musk’s effort to vacate a state statute regarding social media. This news was initially published by The Verge. In accordance with the provisions of Assembly Bill 587, social media platforms are required to post their content moderation standards. Musk’s X (formerly known as Twitter) argued that this action violated the First Amendment. “It does not appear that the requirement is unjustified or unduly burdensome within the context of First Amendment law,” wrote United States District Judge William Shubb in a letter dated Thursday.
The legal team representing X had contended that the law violated the Constitution and would result in censorship. According to the company’s lawsuit, which was submitted in September, AB 587 “has both the purpose and likely effect of pressuring companies such as X Corp. to remove, demonetize, or deprioritize speech that is protected by the Constitution.” In its statement, the corporation asserted that the “true intent” of the law was to “pressure social media platforms to ‘eliminate’ certain constitutionally protected content that the state views as problematic.”
A distinct perspective was held by Judge Shubb. It was written by him that “the reports that are required by AB 587 are purely factual.” “The reporting requirement merely requires social media companies to identify their existing content moderation policies, if any, related to the specified categories,” the statement reads.
As he continued, he stated, “The disclosures that are required are also not controversial.” “The mere fact that the reports may be “connected in some way to a controversial matter” does not in and of itself make the reports themselves controversial.”
For the purpose of demonstrating that the law was “reasonably related to a substantial government interest in requiring social media companies to be transparent about their content moderation policies and practices so that consumers can make informed decisions about where they consume and disseminate news and information,” Shubb came to the conclusion that the burden of proof had been met by the Attorney General of the state of California, Rob Bonta.
In the first year that Musk has owned X, it has been a difficult year for the company. As the advertising business became uncomfortable with the idea of companies sitting next to content created by Nazi sympathizers, the company changed its name, hired a new CEO, built a snarky artificial intelligence chatbot, and brought back a known conspiracy theorist. Additionally, the company lost money. To add insult to injury, the European Union has initiated legal infringement actions against the corporation that was formerly known as Twitter.