X Corp vs. Center for Countering Digital Hate, Order Granting Motion to Dismiss [pdf] | Hacker News Reader

X Corp vs. Center for Countering Digital Hate, Order Granting Motion to Dismiss [pdf]

storage.courtlistener.com

73 pointsaw162110720 comments

"Sometimes it is unclear what is driving a litigation, and only by reading between the lines of a complaint can one attempt to surmise a plaintiff’s true purpose. Other times, a complaint is so unabashedly and vociferously about one thing that there can be no mistaking that purpose. This case represents the latter circumstance. This case is about punishing the Defendants for their speech."

Breyer does not mince words!

In the US truth is adequate defence against libel.

In the US courts allow argument in the alternative, but frown upon those who wish to both possess and ingest their cakes.

pp16-17:

> It is apparent to the Court that X Corp. wishes to have it both ways — to be spared the burdens of pleading a defamation claim, while bemoaning the harm to its reputation, and seeking punishing damages based on reputational harm.

Why is this flagged?

> “X Corp. has brought this case in order to punish CCDH for CCDH publications that criticized X Corp. — and perhaps in order to dissuade others who might wish to engage in such criticism.”

"I'm a free speech absolutist"

X Corp will have to pay CCDH's legal fees because it was deemed that the suit was indeed brought to quash free speech.

Elon has always been clear that he supports free speech within the law as the U.S. courts and constitution have defined it.

This means not allowing things like direct calls to immediate violence, child pornography, fraud, blackmail, and libel.

Him wanting restrictions on the above things does not make him a hypocrite, it makes him reasonable. Take his words seriously, not literally. Let's move past the "gotchas" please.

Except the legal filing we're discussion here is a direct contradiction of everything you just said.

> Other times, a complaint is so unabashedly and vociferously about one thing that there can be no mistaking that purpose. This case represents the latter circumstance. This case is about punishing the Defendants for their speech.

Did you read the OP?

How is any that related to this judge's verdict? Your definition of absolutist must be very different than mine.

A U.S. court has now weighed in on that question and has decided that Elon attempted to stifle free speech as the U.S. courts and Constitution has defined it.

> Elon has always been clear that he supports free speech within the law as the U.S. courts and constitution have defined it.

Yes, he tends to claim that.

In this case, however, he was found by a court to be abusing the legal system for the specific purpose of using the government to suppress speech that is legal in the United States, and sanctioned for that abuse.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com