• by Wendy Davis  @wendyndavis, January 15, 2024

Elon Musk's X Corp. will ask a federal appellate court to strike down a new California law that requires social media platforms to post their content moderation policies and report enforcement efforts to the state attorney general.

Late last month, U.S. District Court Judge William Shubb in Sacramento rejected a request by X, formerly Twitter, to block the law (AB 587) as unconstitutional.

On Friday, X officially appealed that decision to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.

X Corp., which saw ad revenue drop after loosening content-moderation standards last year, sued in September to block the law, arguing it violates the First Amendment by requiring companies to make statements about controversial matters, such as policies regarding offensive speech. The statute includes specific provisions requiring companies to report on whether and how they define and handle “hate speech” and “disinformation.”

Among other arguments, X Corp. said the law represents an effort to pressure platforms to censor “constitutionally-protected content that the government believes is undesirable.”

In general, the First Amendment prohibits the government from attempting to suppress lawful speech -- including speech that's racist, sexist, or otherwise objectionable.

X Corp. argued that even defining hate speech -- as the bill requires -- is controversial.

“Some people view speech intentionally misgendering a transgender individual as 'hate speech' and harassment,” the company writes. “Others insist that forcing someone to call a transgender individual by their preferred pronouns violates their deeply-held beliefs about what is true.”

The company noted in its legal papers that the bill's lead author said he hoped it would pressure platforms to “eliminate hate speech and disinformation.”

Shubb rejected the platform's request to enjoin enforcement, ruling that even though the new law appears to place a “substantial burden” on social media companies, it likely isn't “unjustified or unduly burdensome within the context of First Amendment law.”

He wrote the disclosure mandates were “reasonably related to a substantial government interest in requiring social media companies to be transparent about their content moderation policies and practices so that consumers can make informed decisions about where they consume and disseminate news and information.”

The 9th Circuit hasn't yet set a timetable for the appeal.