Washington
Elon Musk’s social media company sues nonprofit highlighting site’s hate speech
WASHINGTON (AP) — X, the social media platform formerly known as Twitter, has sued a group of researchers — alleging their work highlighting an increase in hate speech on the platform cost the company millions of dollars of advertising revenue.
The suit, filed late Monday night in U.S. District Court in the Northern District of California, accuses the nonprofit Center for Countering Digital Hate of violating X’s terms of service by improperly collecting a vast amount of data for its analysis. The suit also alleges, without offering evidence, that the organization is funded by foreign governments and media companies who view X as competition.
The legal fight between the tech company, which was acquired by Elon Musk last year, and the center could have significant implications for a growing number of researchers and advocacy groups that seek to help the public understand how social media is shaping society and culture.
With offices in the U.S. and United Kingdom, the center regularly publishes reports on hate speech, extremism and harmful behavior on social media platforms like X, TikTok or Facebook. The organization has published several reports critical of Musk’s leadership, detailing an increase in anti-LGBTQ hate speech as well as climate misinformation since his purchase.
In its lawsuit, X alleges the center violated its terms of service by automatically scraping large amounts of data from the site without the company’s permission. X also claims the center improperly accessed internal Twitter data, using log-on credentials it obtained from an employee at a separate company that has a business relationship with X.
Without naming any individuals or companies, the suit says the center receives funding from foreign governments as well as organizations with ties to “legacy media organizations” that see X as a rival.
The suit claims the center’s work has cost X tens of millions of dollars in lost ad revenue.
In response to the legal action, Imran Ahmed, the center’s founder and CEO, defended its work and accused Musk of using the lawsuit to silence criticism of his leadership, as well as research into the role X plays in spreading misinformation and hate speech.
“Musk is trying to ‘shoot the messenger’ who highlights the toxic content on his platform rather than deal with the toxic environment he’s created,” Ahmed said.
The center’s 2021 tax forms show it took in $1.4 million in revenue. A review of major donors shows several large charities, including the National Philanthropic Trust in the U.S. and the Oak Foundation and Joseph Rowntree Charitable Trust in the U.K.
A spokesman for the group said the center receives no funding from any government entities or tech companies that could be considered competitors to X. The identities of other donors is not revealed in public documents, and the center declined to provide a list.
Musk is a self-professed free speech absolutist who has welcomed back white supremacists and election deniers to the platform, which he renamed X last month. He initially had promised that he would allow any speech on his platform that wasn’t illegal. “I hope that even my worst critics remain on Twitter, because that is what free speech means,” Musk wrote in a tweet last year.
Nevertheless, the billionaire has at times proven sensitive about critical speech directed at him or his companies. Last year, he suspended the accounts of several journalists who covered his takeover of Twitter.
Louisiana
Appeals court casts doubt on rule to curb use of handgun stabilizing braces
NEW ORLEANS (AP) — A Biden administration rule requiring registration of stabilizing braces on handguns is unlikely to survive a legal challenge, a federal appeals court panel said Tuesday as it extended an order allowing a gun dealer and others challenging the regulation to keep owning, buying and selling the devices without registering them.
The ruling from the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans sends the case back to a federal judge in Texas who will consider whether to block enforcement nationwide.
Stabilizing braces attach to the back of a handgun, lengthening it while strapping to the arm. Advocates say the attachments make handguns safer and more accurate. Gun safety groups say they can be used to, in effect, lengthen a concealable handgun, making it more lethal. They point to mass shootings in which such braces were used.
While gun control advocates back the registration requirement as a needed curb on use of the braces, two Texas gun owners, a gun rights group and a gun dealer filed a lawsuit challenging the law.
The Texas-based federal judge presiding in the case refused to block the rule, which required registration of the devices and payment of a fee. But in May, the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals issued a temporary block of the rule as it applied to the plaintiffs, their customers and members.
Three 5th Circuit judges heard arguments in June. On Tuesday, the panel voted 2-1 to extend the block on enforcement for 60 days and send the case back to U.S. District Judge Reed O’Connor in Texas. The majority said the challengers were likely to succeed with their argument that the administration failed to comply with the federal Administrative Procedure Act in adopting the rule. It said O’Connor should review that aspect of his original ruling, other issues brought up in the challenge and the scope of any remedies — including whether the block on enforcement should apply nationwide.
“There is a need for consistent application of the law, and this court may not have all the required facts,” Judge Jerry Smith wrote, noting that multiple other courts have issued orders against the federal registration rule since May and that it is uncertain how many people are now covered by such rulings.
The regulation, which went into effect June 1, was one of several steps President Joe Biden first announced in 2021 after a man using a stabilizing brace killed 10 people at a grocery store in Boulder, Colorado. A stabilizing brace was also used in a shooting in Dayton, Ohio, that left nine people dead in 2019 and in a school shooting that killed six in Nashville, Tennessee.
Smith, who was nominated to the appeals court by former President Ronald Reagan, was joined in Tuesday’s ruling by Judge Don Willett, nominated by former President Donald Trump. Judge Stephen Higginson, nominated by former President Barack Obama, dissented, saying O’Connor, nominated to the federal bench by former President George W. Bush, was correct in holding that the government had met the requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act.
