A judge in California today dismissed Elon Musk’s lawsuit against the Center for Countering Digital Hate, CCDH, a nonprofit that has chronicled what it says is an increase in hate speech on X since Musk took over the platform in 2022.

The London-based group has written scathing reports about platforms publishing what it deems misinformation and hate speech since it was founded in 2018. After Musk’s acquisition of X, then Twitter Inc., it has accused the platform of allowing posts to flourish that promote the anti-vax movement, racism and antisemitism.

Backed by powerful interest groups and former British politicians, the foundation has been accused of being part of a new censorship regime. It seems Musk believes that X had become a victim of this regime, writing last year that CCDH “regularly posts articles making inflammatory, outrageous and false or misleading assertions about Twitter and its operations” without attempting a “rigorous design process, analytic procedures or peer review.”

Musk took the matter to the court, saying the campaign against X had driven away advertisers and led to a loss in revenue. He said the CCDH had made “false and misleading” claims possibly “in support of an ulterior agenda” and going as far in a tweet to call the group “Truly evil.” The judge today didn’t see anything so insidious in the actions of CCDH.

“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,” wrote Charles Breyer, the U.S. district judge. “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.”

The decision to scrap the case has come as no shock, with Breyer last month calling the lawsuit the “most vapid extensions of law that I’ve ever heard.” His dismissal was under California’s anti-Slapp law, which enables a judge to strike a complaint that is issued when someone has exercised the rights of petition and free speech.

“The Court notes, too, that X Corp.’s motivation in bringing this case is evident,” Breyer added. “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. If CCDH’s publications were defamatory, that would be one thing, but X Corp. has carefully avoided saying that they are.”

Musk has yet to comment on the decision. He still has a similar lawsuit lodged against the left-leaning pressure group Media Matters, which he says manipulated data to make bogus allegations about Neo-Nazi and white-nationalist fringe content pervading X. This, he said, has also led to revenue losses.

“The courts today have affirmed our fundamental right to research, to speak, to advocate, and to hold accountable social media companies for decisions they make behind closed doors that affect our kids, our democracy, and our fundamental human rights and civil liberties,” said CCDH on its website. “We hope this landmark ruling will embolden public-interest researchers everywhere.”

Photo: BoliviaInteligente/Unsplash