\n<\/p>\n
A federal judge sided against Elon Musk today, dismissing a lawsuit brought by Musk and X<\/a>\u00a0targeting a nonprofit that researches online hate.<\/p>\n X sued the Center for Countering Digital Hate (CCDH) last year, accusing the group of spreading misleading claims<\/a> after it published a series of unflattering reports<\/a> about hate and extremism on the platform. In the lawsuit, X claimed that it lost \u201ctens of millions of dollars\u201d as a direct result of the CCDH\u2019s research.<\/p>\n Musk and X also accused the CCDH of illegally scraping data and breaking the platform\u2019s rules by aggregating content through a third-party social media monitoring tool called Brandwatch. Musk, who personally directed the lawsuit, called the CCDH \u201can evil propaganda machine\u201d in replies on X.<\/p>\n Last year, the CCDH filed a motion to strike X\u2019s claims under California\u2019s law against Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation (SLAPP), meant to prevent frivolous lawsuits whose intention is primarily to intimidate, and asked a judge to dismiss the lawsuit. CCDH CEO Imran Ahmed accused Musk, who is worth around $200 billion, of deliberately drawing out the legal process to run up the organization\u2019s legal costs.<\/p>\n United States District Judge of the Northern District of California Charles R. Breyer granted the CCDH\u2019s motion to dismisson Monday. Breyer also denied Musk and X the opportunity to relitigate the case.<\/p>\n \u201cSometimes it is unclear what is driving a litigation, and only by reading between the lines of a complaint can one attempt to surmise a plaintiff\u2019s true purpose,\u201d Judge Breyer stated in the ruling. \u201cOther times, a complaint is so unabashedly and vociferously about one thing that there can be no mistaking that purpose.<\/p>\n \u201cX Corp. has brought this case in order to punish CCDH for CCDH publications that criticized X Corp.\u2014and perhaps in order to dissuade others who might wish to engage in such critics.\u201d<\/p>\n In the months following Musk\u2019s takeover of Twitter, the CCDH highlighted the rise of hate speech on the platform, including a report that explored how his decision to unban a number of highly followed extremists could give the company an ad revenue boost. That included infamous neo-Nazi Andrew Anglin<\/a>, who created the white supremacist website The Daily Stormer.<\/p>\n The nonprofit, formed in 2018, researches trends in hate speech, extremism and misinformation on major social nertworks. Its research regularly details disturbing content across social platforms, including reports on eating disorder content on TikTok<\/a>, climate denial <\/a>on YouTube and violent misogynistic threats<\/a>\u00a0on Instagram.<\/p>\n \u201cWe create costs for lies and hate,\u201d Ahmed said following the ruling. \u201cThe courts today have affirmed our fundamental right to research, to speak, to advocate, and to hold accountable social media companies for decisions they make behind closed doors that affect our kids, our democracy, and our fundamental human rights and civil liberties.\u201d<\/p>\n The nonprofit\u2019s legal team included Roberta Kaplan<\/a>, who was fresh off of a massive win against former president Donald Trump in the E. Jean Carroll defamation suit. \u201cToday\u2019s decision proves that even the world\u2019s wealthiest man cannot bend the rule of law to his will,\u201d Kaplan said of Monday\u2019s ruling.<\/p>\n While the CCDH\u2019s victory in California is a relief to researchers who track online extremism, Musk is pursuing a similar lawsuit<\/a> against the left-leaning media watchdog Media Matters for America. Unlike the CCDH lawsuit, X is suing Media Matters for America in Texas, which doesn\u2019t share California\u2019s protections against frivolous lawsuits designed to stifle free speech.<\/p>\n<\/p><\/div>\n