CCDH Anti-SLAPPs Elon, and Elon “Thermonuclear” SLAPPs Media Matters

As we easily predicted, the Center for Countering Digital Hate filed a 12(b)(6) motion against the social media platform formerly known as Twitter.  Elon sued CCDH a while back because CCDH complained about hate speech on X.  Our next prediction is that CCDH will win on that motion and Elon X will eventually pay CCDH’s legal fees.  Life must great when have money to burn. 

Here is CCDH’s mission statement:

The Center for Countering Digital Hate works to stop the spread of online hate and disinformation through innovative research, public campaigns and policy advocacy.  Through research, we expose the producers and spreaders of hate and disinformation, and demonstrate the offline consequences. Through campaigns, we galvanize support from the public and advertisers to pressure social media companies and tech platforms to reform. Through communications, we shape the debate to educate the public and key stakeholders about online harms. Through policy and partnerships, we persuade policymakers and collaborate with civil society leaders to demand reform of social media.

CCDH is not shy about calling out X or its main rival, Tic-Toc, for allegedly enabling and then tolerating hate speech on their separate platforms.  And its advocacy has been effective, apparently, because advertisers are sensitive to ESG, not because they are using stockholder money for their bleeding heart causes but because they understand that social injustice lowers their bottom line.  Word on the Street is that X is losing money and users faster than Mike Pence lost MAGA voters on January 6. 

Elon X is no less shy about filing SLAPP suits.  Last week he sued Media Matters America, another watch dog, for reporting on Elon’s antisemitic comments on X.  It’s so crazy that people who stretch the limits of free speech want everybody else to shut up. 

The Motion to Dismiss is beautifully written, heavily weighed down by authorities, and an easy read.  It will be interesting to read the response once it is filed.  Here is a bit from Motion:

Despite all the window dressing, this is fundamentally a case about speech. Plaintiff X Corp. is a multibillion-dollar, privately-held corporation that operates “X,” formerly known as Twitter— one of the world’s largest and most influential social media platforms. The CCDH Defendants are nonprofit organizations with the mission of protecting human rights and civil liberties online, founded after a white supremacist (radicalized online) murdered a colleague of their founder and CEO. The CCDH Defendants and other nonprofit groups have researched, authored, and published reports and articles documenting how major social media companies, including X Corp., protect or fail to protect against hate speech and false narratives relating to public health, climate change, and other topics of public concern. In turn, the companies, including X Corp., and their respective executives have spoken to defend their policies and critique these reports’ methodologies. Users, advertisers, and the public are obviously free to compare the arguments marshaled by both sides. And after evaluating each side’s speech, users and advertisers can decide for themselves whether and how to continue using the companies’ platforms.

I thought that paragraph brilliantly related the virtual “marketplace of ideas” to the real marketplace.  

darryll k. jones