Judge Appears Correctly Skeptical Of Elon’s SLAPP Suit Against Critic
from the is-it-bad-when-a-judge-calls-your-legal-argument-vapid? dept
We have pointed out just how ridiculous Elon Musk’s SLAPP lawsuit against the Center for Countering Digital Hate is, so much that I supported the filing of an amicus brief in support of CCDH, even as I find CCDH’s positions and research to be generally problematic and misleading. But, even if their research methods aren’t great, they still deserve their right to speak out, and they should not face ruinous litigation from a petulant CEO who only pretends to support free speech.
On Thursday, there were oral arguments in the case, and to say they did not go well for Elon would be an understatement. The judge appeared to openly mock the company for its terrible legal arguments. And, most importantly, he (correctly) pointed out how “antithetical” to free speech this lawsuit appeared to be:
“You put that in terms of safety, and I’ve got to tell you, I guess you can use that word, but I can’t think of anything basically more antithetical to the First Amendment than this process of silencing people from publicly disseminated information once it’s been published,” Breyer said.
“You’re trying to shoehorn this theory by using these words into a viable breach of contract claim,” the judge added.
This was exactly the point that was raised in the amicus brief (brilliantly put together by Harvard’s Cyberlaw clinic). That the claims of “breach of contract” were a nonsense attempt to stifle speech, and hoping that by not including a defamation claim it would somehow avoid First Amendment scrutiny. The judge, Charles Breyer, seemed to have figured out ExTwitter’s sneaky plan pretty easily.
Near the end of the hearing, the judge noted that if something is proven to be true a defamation lawsuit falls apart. Why, he said, didn’t Musk’s X bring a defamation suit if the company believes X’s reputation has been harmed?
“You could’ve brought a defamation case, you didn’t bring a defamation case,” Breyer said. “And that’s significant.”
Yeah, because everyone knows that there was no actual defamation.
The judge appeared also to see through the nonsense of the breach of contract claims directly. ExTwitter claims that CCDH should be liable for the loss of ad revenue of advertisers leaving the platform in response to CCDH’s research report. But, the judge pointed out how tenuous this was, to the point of calling the argument “one of the most vapid extensions of law I’ve ever heard.”
But in order to make this case, X had to show the group knew the financial loss was “foreseeable” when it started its account and began abiding by Twitter’s terms of service, in 2019, before Musk acquired the site.
X lawyer Hawk argued that the platform’s terms of service state that the rules for the site could change at any time, including that suspended users whom the group says spread hate speech could be reinstated.
And so, Hawk said, if changes to the rules were foreseeable, then the financial loss from its reports on users spreading hate should have also been foreseeable.
This logic confused and frustrated the judge.
“That, of course, reduces foreseeability to one of the most vapid extensions of law I’ve ever heard,” Breyer said.
There are times, in a courtroom, where you shouldn’t read very much into things a judge says. And then there are times where it’s pretty clear the judge understands just how how wrong one side is. This is one of the latter cases.
According to a friend who attended the hearing (virtually, since it was on Zoom), these quotes don’t even get to how bad the hearing was for Elon. Apparently, at one point the judge asked ExTwitter’s lawyer “are you serious?” which is never a good thing. ExTwitter’s lawyer also had to walk back a few arguments in court, including when the company tried to apply the wrong terms of service to a separate non-profit they had tried to drag into the case. And, finally, towards the end of the hearing, apparently ExTwitter’s lawyer tried to claim that they had pled actual malice (which, you know, is kind of important), only to have CCDH’s lawyer point out that they had not. CCDH is right. You can look at the amended complaint yourself.
None of that is likely to go over well with this judge.
Filed Under: anti-slapp, breach of contract, defamation, elon musk, slapp
Companies: ccdh, twitter, x
Comments on “Judge Appears Correctly Skeptical Of Elon’s SLAPP Suit Against Critic”
I’ve noticed that “free speech” and “the free market” are remarkably similar when it comes to people like Musk; such people only support it to the extent that it benefits them personally. The instant it works against them, they try to get the state to crack down on any speech/business decisions that they don’t like.
Re:
There actually is free speech, for some, free market not so much.
A defamation-less 'defamation' case by any other name...
Nice of the judge to catch the blatantly obvious ‘We can’t argue defamation because what they said is true and we know it, so instead we’ll try claim that pointing out the nazis on our service is a contract violation’ scam they’re trying.
It’s almost enough to make you feel sorry for Elon’s lawyer(s) here, they’ve been handed a complete dumpster-fire of a case where neither the facts or law are on their side, leaving them with basically the Chewbacca Defense as their only hope and it would seem the know it.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
This judge needs to be slapped
No one can deny Elon’s greatness.
I sucked him and he promised me a pony.
All Hail Free Speech!
Re:
Guys, read the second sentence. This isn’t the real revenge porn king.
And so, I say, if changes to the rules were foreseeable, then the financial loss from users spreading hate should have also been foreseeable. QED.
Elon. your Sombody Else’s Problem field generator prototype isn’t working..
Elon is Trying to put the blame on CCD, for his own actions that caused advertisers to bail, he argues that CCDH is liable because it’s a foreseeable consequence of their reporting that advertisers would bail.
Only problem is it’s not the -reporting- that’s actually the problem, it’s the increased presence of Qool-Aid drinkers on the platform, that is the problem, and that is due directly to Elon’s own actions in luring them back to Twitter.
If Elon wants to sue somebody who took actions that had the foreseeable consequence of scaring advertisers off, he should look in the mirror.
The new reality (sort of) weekly TV show: “Who is Elon Suing?”
Who will Elon attempt to sue in next weeks episode? You never know, it could be you so stay tuned to find out.
Re:
Funny you should mention it…
https://arstechnica.com/ai/2024/03/elon-musk-sues-openai-and-sam-altman-accusing-them-of-chasing-profits/