A federal judge has rejected an attempt by X, formerly known as Twitter, to temporarily halt a California law that would have required social media platforms to disclose their strategies for managing harmful content.
AB 587, passed last year, requires large social media companies to share descriptions of how they moderate content containing hate speech or racism, extremism or radicalization, disinformation, harassment and foreign political interference. In a complaint filed in September, X argued that the law violated First Amendment rights to free speech.
The company formerly known as Twitter has failed to prove that point. U.S. District Judge William Shubb denied X’s request for a preliminary legal injunction. “While the reporting requirement does impose a substantial compliance burden on social media companies, the requirement does not appear to be unreasonable or excessive in the context of the First Amendment,” Schaab wrote in the decision released yesterday. Onerous.”
“The required disclosures are also not in dispute.”
X did not immediately respond to a request for comment. edge, responded to an email saying: “We are busy right now, please check back later.” The company’s complaint against AB 587 said it is “difficult to reliably define” what constitutes hate speech, misinformation and political interference. It also claims AB 587 will force social media platforms to “‘eliminate’ certain constitutionally protected content.”
Shubb, on the other hand, found the information AB 587 requires companies to report to the attorney general twice a year to be straightforward. “The reporting required by AB 587 is purely factual. The reporting requirements only require social media companies to identify their existing content moderation policies, if any, related to specified categories,” his decision said. “The required disclosures are also not controversial. The fact that these reports may be ‘linked in some way to controversial issues’ does not make the reports themselves controversial.”
