Championing Public Dialogue: CCDH's Defense of Free Speech Rights

3. “In Connection with a Public Issue”

Finally, CCDH’s actions in furtherance of its free speech rights were in connection with a public issue. X Corp. alleges that CCDH uses its reports “to demand that platform providers kick the targeted users off of their platforms, thus silencing their viewpoints on broadly debated topics such as COVID-19 vaccines, reproductive healthcare, and climate change.” FAC ¶ 3; see also id. ¶ 44 (March 24, 2021 CCDH report on anti-vaxxers), ¶ 46 (November 10, 2022 CCDH article on hate speech), ¶ 49 (February 9, 2023 CCDH report on hate speech), id. ¶ 72 (“X Corp. has been harmed in its mission to provide its users with a platform in which topics of paramount public concern can be discussed and debated free from the censorship efforts of activist organizations advancing narrow ideological agendas through deceitful means.”). These reports implicate public issues. See Resolute Forest Prods., Inc. v. Greenpeace Int’l, 302 F. Supp. 3d 1005, 1025 (N.D. Cal. 2017) (“California courts have broadly construed public interest to include not only governmental matters, but also private conduct that impacts a broad segment of society and/or that affects a community in a manner similar to that of a governmental entity.” (internal quotation marks omitted); see also PPP Br. at 7 (“Public debate and interest on matters of disinformation and hate speech on social media platforms have been profound in recent years, including multiple congressional hearings and constant coverage by national media.”). X Corp. does not dispute this point.

The Court therefore concludes that CCDH has met its burden at the first step of the anti-SLAPP analysis. This order will therefore go on to assess whether X Corp. has established that there is a probability that it will prevail on its claims. See Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 425.16(b)(1).