paint-brush
Championing Public Dialogue: CCDH's Defense of Free Speech Rightsby@legalpdf

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

by Legal PDFMarch 29th, 2024
Read on Terminal Reader
Read this story w/o Javascript
tldt arrow

Too Long; Didn't Read

CCDH's actions, in line with its free speech rights, were related to public issues such as COVID-19 vaccines, reproductive healthcare, and climate change. This aligns with the public interest as per legal precedents. The court acknowledges this under the anti-SLAPP analysis, moving on to assess X Corp.'s likelihood of success in its claims.
featured image - Championing Public Dialogue: CCDH's Defense of Free Speech Rights
Legal PDF HackerNoon profile picture

X Corp. v. Center for Countering Digital Hate, INC. Court Filing, retrieved on March 25, 2024 is part of HackerNoon’s Legal PDF Series. You can jump to any part in this filing here. This part is 9 of 19.

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).



Continue Reading Here.


About HackerNoon Legal PDF Series: We bring you the most important technical and insightful public domain court case filings.


This court case retrieved on March 25, 2024, from storage.courtlistener is part of the public domain. The court-created documents are works of the federal government, and under copyright law, are automatically placed in the public domain and may be shared without legal restriction.