{"id":6560,"date":"2025-06-18T16:54:02","date_gmt":"2025-06-18T16:54:02","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/usatrustedlawyers.com\/blog\/x-alleges-new-yorks-stop-hiding-hate-act-impinges-free-speech-justia-news-june-18-2025\/"},"modified":"2025-06-18T16:54:02","modified_gmt":"2025-06-18T16:54:02","slug":"x-alleges-new-yorks-stop-hiding-hate-act-impinges-free-speech-justia-news-june-18-2025","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/usatrustedlawyers.com\/blog\/x-alleges-new-yorks-stop-hiding-hate-act-impinges-free-speech-justia-news-june-18-2025\/","title":{"rendered":"X Alleges New York’s “Stop Hiding Hate” Act Impinges Free Speech \u2014 Justia News \u2014 June 18, 2025"},"content":{"rendered":"\n
\n

Social media platform X filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York, on June 17th, alleging that New York\u2019s \u201cStop Hiding Hate\u201d Act violates the platform\u2019s free speech rights.<\/p>\n

New York Governor Kathy Hochul signed the \u201cStop Hiding Hate\u201d Act in December 2024. The law requires social media platforms to submit reports twice yearly to the New York State Attorney General detailing whether and how the platforms define hate speech, extremist or racist content, disinformation, harassment, and foreign political interference. Under the law, social media platforms must also disclose their content moderation practices and provide metrics and data as to the number of content, groups, and users flagged for violation, number of actions taken, and types of enforcement actions. The law takes effect later this year.<\/p>\n

X filed its lawsuit to challenge the constitutionality and legal validity of the law. The complaint alleges that the law violates the First Amendment since the reporting provisions \u201ccompel disclosure of highly sensitive and controversial speech that is. . . fully protected by the First Amendment.\u201d X also claims that the law \u201cimpermissibily interferes with the First Amendment-protected editorial judgments of companies. . . to remove, demonetize, or deprioritize such speech on their platforms.\u201d The complaint continues on to argue that the law\u2019s \u201cattempt to tilt the marketplace of ideas\u201d by harnessing public pressure to achieve its goals is impermissible since the government \u201ccannot do indirectly what [it] is barred from doing directly,\u201d citing National Rifle Association of America v. Vullo<\/em>.<\/p>\n

X points to California Assembly Bill No. 587 as persuasive evidence that New York\u2019s law should be struck down. X challenged AB 587, a California law targeting social media platforms with similar reporting provisions, and succeeded in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in 2024. The Ninth Circuit ruled that AB 587\u2019s reporting provisions likely compel non-commercial speech and the provisions do not survive strict scrutiny. California Attorney General Robert Bonta eventually agreed to a settlement that included a permanent injunction preventing enforcement of AB 587\u2019s reporting provisions. In March 2025, a federal trial court ruled that California\u2019s law violates the First Amendment, both facially and as-applied to X.<\/p>\n

In its lawsuit against New York Attorney General Letitia James, X argues that the \u201cStop Hiding Hate\u201d Act\u2019s reporting provisions \u201care a carbon copy of the provisions of AB 587.\u201d The complaint states that the New York legislature failed to revisit its law in light of the Ninth Circuit\u2019s ruling and refused to discuss potential changes to the law proferred by X. In addition to the First Amendment challenge, X also argues that it has immunity as an interactive computer service provider under 47 U.S.C. \u00a7 230(c)(2)(A). X claims that the \u201cStop Hiding Hate\u201d Act infringes upon said immunity \u201cby imposing monetary fines and suits for injunctive relief. . . if it \u2018restrict[s] access\u2019 to content on its platform in a way that. . . \u2018misrepresents\u2019 information in a [report].\u201d<\/p>\n

X\u2019s lawsuit seeks relief in the form of declaratory relief and injunctive relief.<\/p>\n

Additional Reading<\/strong><\/p>\n

Musk\u2019s X sues New York over requirement to show how social media platforms handle problematic posts<\/a>,\u00a0The Associated Press<\/em> (June 17, 2025)<\/p>\n

Governor Hochul Signs Online Safety Legislation to Strengthen Protections for the Personal Data of Consumers<\/a>,\u00a0New York State<\/em> (December 24, 2024)<\/p>\n

X Corp. v. James<\/a><\/em> (Case No. 1:2025cv05068)<\/p>\n

Complaint in X Corp. v. James<\/em><\/p>\n

Photo Credit:\u00a0<\/strong>kovop \/ Shutterstock.com<\/p>\n<\/div>\n