Since Musk took over, the Center for Countering Digital Hate alleges an increase in the publication of hateful material on Twitter
Elon Musk’s X Corp, the owner of the rebranded social media site X (formerly Twitter), has been accused of intimidation by an anti-hate speech campaign group. The Center for Countering Digital Hate (CCDH) has been actively researching the platform’s content since Musk acquired it last year. Their work suggests that the publication of hateful material on the site has increased since the completion of the $44 billion deal.
In response, Musk’s legal representative wrote to CCDH and its CEO, Imran Ahmed, accusing the organization of posting articles with “inflammatory, outrageous, and false or misleading assertions about Twitter.” Recently, Musk announced plans to rebrand Twitter as “X” and transform it into a Chinese-style super-app.
Alex Spiro, a prominent lawyer from the US law firm Quinn Emanuel Urquhart and Sullivan, who represents Elon Musk, sent the letter. Spiro has also recently issued a legal warning to Meta regarding the launch of Threads, which is referred to as the “Twitter killer” app.
The letter addressed to CCDH includes a threat of potential legal action. X is evaluating whether CCDH’s “false and misleading claims” could be subject to action under the Lanham Act, a US legislation covering trademark law. The letter further warns that Twitter will use all available legal means to prevent any harm to its users, platform, or business arising from such false or misleading claims.
The legal representative for CCDH described the letter as “ridiculous” and seen as an attempt to intimidate advocates against incitement, hate speech, and harmful content online.
In the letter, Alex Spiro accused CCDH of making a series of troubling and unfounded claims, seemingly intended to harm Twitter in general, and specifically its digital advertising business. Advertising constituted 90% of Twitter’s $5.1 billion revenue, according to its last published annual results. However, since the takeover, advertisers have been holding back spending, with some citing concerns over Musk’s ownership and content moderation standards. Musk himself stated that advertising revenue at Twitter declined by 50%.
Spiro focused on a CCDH article that alleged “Twitter fails to act on 99% of Twitter Blue accounts tweeting hate.” The article was based on CCDH staff reporting 100 tweets and checking for action taken against them four days later. Spiro argued that the article lacked transparency in its methodology for selecting and testing tweets and failed to explain why those 100 tweets, out of nearly 500 million sent daily on the platform, were representative of Twitter’s content moderation practices.
In response to Spiro’s letter, Roberta Kaplan from the US law firm Kaplan Hecker and Finck stated that CCDH’s work does not fall under the type of advertisement or commercial speech that might trigger the Lanham Act. Kaplan added that the legal threat appeared to be an effort to stifle criticism and contradicted Musk’s claimed dedication to free speech.
In her reply, Kaplan pointed out that there is no legitimate legal grievance in this matter. She asserted that the attempt to wield such a threat, using a law firm’s letterhead, is a clear and obvious endeavor to silence genuine criticism. This behavior, she argued, stands in stark contrast to the proclaimed commitment to free speech purportedly held by Twitter’s current leadership.
Kaplan highlighted that among the 100 Twitter Blue posts were examples like: “Black culture has done more damage [than] the [Ku Klux] Klan ever did.”
Ahmed asserted that Musk is specifically targeting CCDH due to their efforts in exposing the truth about the spread of hate and disinformation on Twitter under his ownership, which, in turn, impacts his financial interests.
The Molly Rose Foundation, founded by the family of Molly Russell, a British teenager who tragically took her own life in 2017 after being exposed to harmful online content, offered its support to CCDH. Ian Russell, Molly’s father and a board member of CCDH UK, who also chairs the foundation’s trustees, stated that Elon Musk’s legal threats constitute an unprecedented attack on civil society and establish a dangerous precedent for tech companies attempting to intimidate and silence independent tech accountability campaigners.
Professor Brian Quinn from Boston College Law School emphasized that the First Amendment still applies in the US, and expressing criticism about X’s poor management and individuals lacking self-control is not illegal.
