X sues California over social media content moderation law
X, the social media company formerly known as Twitter, is suing the state of California over a law that requires companies to disclose details about their content moderation practices. The law, known as AB 587, requires social media companies to post information about their handling of hate speech, extremism, misinformation and other issues, as well as details about internal moderation processes.
X's lawyers say the law is unconstitutional and will lead to censorship. This “has both the purpose and likely effect of putting pressure on companies like X Corp.” to suppress, demonetize, or deprioritize constitutionally protected speech,” the company wrote in the lawsuit. "The true intent of AB 587 is to pressure social media platforms to 'take down' certain constitutionally protected content deemed problematic by the state."
X is not the only one to oppose the law. Although the measure was supported by some activists, a number of industry groups challenged AB 587. Netchoice, a trade group that represents Meta, Google, TikTok and other tech companies, argued last year that AB 587 would help bad actors escape businesses. security measures and make it more difficult to enforce their rules.
At the same time, supporters of AB 587 said it was necessary to increase transparency of major platforms. “If @X has nothing to hide, then they should have no objection to this bill,” said Rep. Jesse Gabriel, who wrote AB 587, in response to X’s lawsuit.
X, the social media company formerly known as Twitter, is suing the state of California over a law that requires companies to disclose details about their content moderation practices. The law, known as AB 587, requires social media companies to post information about their handling of hate speech, extremism, misinformation and other issues, as well as details about internal moderation processes.
X's lawyers say the law is unconstitutional and will lead to censorship. This “has both the purpose and likely effect of putting pressure on companies like X Corp.” to suppress, demonetize, or deprioritize constitutionally protected speech,” the company wrote in the lawsuit. "The true intent of AB 587 is to pressure social media platforms to 'take down' certain constitutionally protected content deemed problematic by the state."
X is not the only one to oppose the law. Although the measure was supported by some activists, a number of industry groups challenged AB 587. Netchoice, a trade group that represents Meta, Google, TikTok and other tech companies, argued last year that AB 587 would help bad actors escape businesses. security measures and make it more difficult to enforce their rules.
At the same time, supporters of AB 587 said it was necessary to increase transparency of major platforms. “If @X has nothing to hide, then they should have no objection to this bill,” said Rep. Jesse Gabriel, who wrote AB 587, in response to X’s lawsuit.
What's Your Reaction?
