For a free speech "absolutist", Elon Musk certainly appears to be more than eager to sue any person saying anything he doesn't like.

That is, essentially, the central ingredient in today's ruling against Musk and X (formerly Twitter), as a U.S. judge dismissed X Corp's lawsuit against Center for Countering Digital Hate (C.C.D.H.), which X had filed after the C.C.D.H. had reported that hate speech has mushroomed on the platform since Musk had acquired it.

At the beginning of last year, C.C.D.H. published a series of reports that it said indicated hate speech had grown on the platform since Musk acquired it.

It's worth noting that the first report came out in December 2022; however, evidence provided by the C.C.D.H. showed that slurs against Black and transgender people had increased dramatically during the months after Musk took over the app. Additional reports also revealed that X stopped regulating rule-breaking tweets made by subscribers who have an X Premium subscription, but another report indicated that X allowed active some tweets referencing the LGBTQ+ community with 'grooming' slurs still active.

X Corp responded to this by filing lawsuits that would deny these allegations, which X explained as follows:

The Center for Countering Digital Hate and its allies have been loudly working to have false and misleading claims forward a laundry list of demands telling advertisers to step back investment on the platform. X is a free public service, funded largely by advertisements. The CCDH has used its scare campaign and continues to push brands to restrict public access to free expression as it works to block public conversation.

Clearly, that was the view upon which the judge did not rely significantly, as he left very little to the imagination as to his view of X's claims.

In his ruling, Judge Charles Breyer said:

Sometimes it is not clear what is motivating a litigation, and only by reading between the lines of a complaint can one even attempt to make an educated guess as to the purpose that a plaintiff truly holds. Other times, a complaint is so unapologetically and loudly about something that there can be no mistake as to that purpose. This case represents the latter circumstance. This case is about punishing the Defendants for their speech.

In essence, Judge Breyer ruled that X Corp's case had no merit and was "a blatant attempt to intimidate researchers and critics."
Which, again, runs contrary to the claims of free speech above all made by Elon Musk. But essentially, Musk has used-and continues to use the threat of legal action to intimidate and limit opposing perspectives, often using dubious legal grounds.

For example, since buying the company that used to be called Twitter, Musk has threatened and/or filed a lawsuit against:

The Anti-Defamation League (A.D.L.) over its publication of a report which showed that antisemitism has increased in the app under Musk
Media Matters over its publication of a report which showed that X has been running ads alongside pro-Nazi or other hateful user posts on X
Australia's eSafety commission over its calls for X to detail its efforts to remove C.S.A.M. content
The State of California over AB 587, which X says is becoming law
 "to coerce social media companies to "abolish" certain constitutionally-protected content the State deems objectionable"
A more general "George Soros-funded groups" which have charged that hate speech on X is on the rise
An ex-Twitter employee who claims that Musk has been elevating his own tweets above all else
An owner of an account that tracks Elon Musk's private jet travel itineraries
OpenAI, alleging contract breach over the shift from nonprofit to for-profit model
Meta, for allegedly stealing Twitter code and hiring former Twitter employees for its Threads app
Even more sobering is that Elon Musk has escalated his legal threats from "naming and shaming" advertisers who choose to leave the app to "thermonuclear" lawsuits, intended to harm people and businesses, and now by vowing he will "be extremely loud and go after the boards of directors of the companies too" in his actions.

The obvious aim of these declarations is to quell dissent through threats of legal reprisal.

Beyond that, Musk has vowed to pay lawyers to defend anyone fired for their X posts, and he's promised the same to people "discriminated against by Disney or its subsidiaries", as part of his broader crusade against what he and his fans view as "woke" nostrums.

And while Musk's apologists will somehow rationalize each and every one of these acts, one finds it difficult to deny that many of them stand squarely at odds with his public free speech posturings.

Indeed, one of the free speech precepts enunciated by Musk is that:

"A good sign as to whether there is free speech: Is somebody you don't like allowed to say something you don't like? If that is the case, then we have free speech."

Many of the above legal cases are founded on things that Elon simply doesn't like, and have no legal basis to them, with, again, the main impetus seeming to be to threaten and intimidate opponents to his own beliefs and initiatives.

So will this ruling change X Corp's approach on the same moving forward?

So, X is already planning an appeal, and it seems like this will carry on for some time yet.

But on balance, looking at the scope of legal actions taken by Elon and Co., it really does start to seem more like a tactic, rather more like a calculated strategy to crush opposition via fear of legal penalty.

Each case will still, of course, be tried on its individual merits. But it'll be interesting to see whether the courts start to factor this broader scope into their rulings.