Once upon a time, Elon Musk tweeted on his then-new social media platform, “Free speech is the bedrock of a functioning democracy.” He, of course, was referring to the First Amendment to the US Constitution, which declares that “Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press.” Yet Musk, a self-proclaimed “free speech absolutist,” has not kept to his promise to adhere to free speech for all on X, formerly known as Twitter. It’s a fact of contemporary life: social media is the most popular way for people of all ages to get their information. Heaven forbid the internet goes out! We’d miss out on checking our favorite stories on Instagram, TikTok, Facebook, or even X. Quick access, however, masks unverified information. Misinformation inspires clicks, and clicks spur profits. Profits have made Musk the world’s richest person. Deciding what content is acceptable on social media platforms “engenders considerable debate among reasonable people about where to draw the correct proverbial line,” X said in a challenge last year to a New York law. “This is not a role that the government may play.” X sued, claiming provisions of New York’s “Stop Hiding Hate Act” violate state and federal free speech guarantees. The law requires X and other major social media companies to file reports detailing how they define and moderate hate speech, racism, extremism, radicalization, disinformation and misinformation, harassment and foreign political interference. Musk and X sought an order declaring the New York provisions void so as to block them from being enforced. X had successfully challenged a similar California law, winning court-ordered limits on the law, known as AB 587. US District Judge John Cronan dismissed the suit by Elon Musk’s X Corp. that sought to block the New York law requiring social media companies to disclose how they deal with hate speech, extremism, and disinformation, ruling that “the First Amendment poses no obstacle” to the law. Judge Cronan said the law requires social media companies only “to speak truthfully about their offerings,” supporting the free speech goal of “the discovery of truth.” “Businesses always exercise their discretion, judgment, and opinions when deciding what goods or services to offer,” Judge Cronan wrote. “Burger King chooses to generally offer higher-calorie items than, say, Sweetgreen, but the disclosure of calorie information remains purely factual. So, too, here.” Last year, a federal judge dismissed a lawsuit brought by Musk against the research group, Center for Countering Digital Hate, that documented an uptick in hate speech on Musk’s social media site. Why does Musk refuse to disclose how the staff at X deals with hate speech, extremism, and disinformation? Michael Rosenblum argues on Medium that Musk “takes no responsibility for what he publishes, and X publishes some pretty revolting stuff — racist, sexist, and overtly antisemitic.” The New York lawsuit is only one of several cases that Musk has pending in the courts. His company xAI has sued Minnesota over the state’s first-in-the-nation law that bans “nudification” technology on websites and apps, potentially providing a test for how far states can go in constitutionally regulating the use of artificial intelligence. In the 38-page lawsuit, xAI — whose AI model chatbot and image generator Grok is available on the social media platform known as X and elsewhere — said it does not contest the state’s interest in banning the distribution of AI-generated nude images of real people without their consent. Minnesota’s law “extends far beyond that goal,” banning many constitutionally protected images and video and subjecting the company to a penalty of $500,000 per violation. The ban targets technology that allows users to create and post deepfake videos or images of people naked without their consent. Companies that violate the law could face a substantial fine. The Minnesota state Legislature passed the law almost unanimously this year. News stories around generative AI tools and their problems are quite common. Generative AI is implicated in a host of ethical issues and social costs, including: bias, misrepresentation, and marginalization; labor exploitation and worker harms; privacy violations and data extraction; copyright and authorship issues; environmental costs; and, misinformation and disinformation. References “Elon Musk & Free Speech.” Michael Rosenblum. Medium. January 13, 2026. “Elon Musk’s xAI sues Minn. over first-in-the-nation law banning ‘nudification’ technology.” Marc Levy and Barbara Ortutay, The Associated Press. July 31, 2026.
