Elon Musk Sues His Critics to Silence Them. So Much for “Freedom of Speech.”

Elon Musk, self-proclaimed “free speech absolutist,” demands that government infringe on free speech rights. Again.

Despite his posturing as a defender of free speech, Musk has been one of the most irritating legal entities in the country against anyone who exercises their First Amendment rights in a way he doesn’t like. His latest target is GARM, the Global Alliance for Responsible Media, a trade association for advertisers on online platforms, of which X, formerly Twitter, is a member. The lawsuit also targets several GARM members for allegedly criminally refusing to buy ads on Musk’s website.

X CEO Linda Yaccarino posted a video Tuesday explaining that the lawsuit is part of the company’s noble pursuit of preserving “the global urban marketplace… the one place where you can freely and openly express yourself.” Yaccarino wore a pendant around her neck that read “FREEDOM OF SPEECH.”

On Thursday, GARM, citing its inability to handle legal fees that would likely run into seven figures, simply closed its doors, ending all operations. Musk’s censorship intimidation worked—he abused the legal system to silence his critics.

Musk’s argument against GARM fits into a long-standing pattern of his: attacks on free speech under the guise of pro-free speech rhetoric.

Large corporations generally don’t want to pay for ads to appear next to posts praising Adolf Hitler, among other harmful content that has flourished on X under Musk. That’s not an unreasonable position, and GARM has been working to announce common standards that companies can adopt for this type of brand security. That, Musk argues, violated antitrust laws.

Deciding where to buy ads is an exercise of basic free speech and free association rights for any individual or organization. Boycotting X because it is filled with hate speech is no different than a conservative advocacy group refusing to pay for ads on a progressive podcast. It is also a case of business judgment for for-profit corporations. PetSmart may choose to buy ads in Cat Fancy magazines rather than Cigar Aficionado, for example.

It’s the latest in a long line of lawsuits Musk has filed to silence his critics, a tactic known as a strategic law suit against public participation, or SLAPP.

He also sued Media Matters for documenting how X fails to protect big corporate ads from extremist content. He went after the Center for Countering Digital Hate in the same vein. He also supported the patently absurd criminal investigations into Media Matters brought by Republican attorneys general in Texas and Missouri, which have since been closed by a federal court as clear First Amendment violations.

At times, Musk’s interest in promoting censorship extends beyond his own critics, such as when he agreed to cover the legal costs of a Canadian anti-vaxxer who sued multiple people for their unkind behavior toward her.

For years, true free speech advocates have pushed for anti-SLAPP statutes that make it easier to quickly dismiss and collect attorney fees for constitutionally protected free speech disputes. Texas and California, among other states, have adopted these robust protections. Unfortunately, there is no national anti-SLAPP law for lawsuits based on federal law claims like Musk’s antitrust theory. Federal district courts are also divided on whether state anti-SLAPP statutes can apply even to state law claims like defamation brought in federal court in interstate jurisdiction.

Meanwhile, Musk’s anti-free speech law is having its intended effect, even if it can never reliably lead to a final decision in his favor.

In addition to GARM’s closure, Media Matters also recently laid off several employees, with many observers pointing to Musk’s lawsuit as a likely contributing factor. This is the defining characteristic of the SLAPP strategy: trial as punishment, ruining the targets with the cost of fighting a case even when it has no legal basis. The tactic can be especially effective for nonprofits and individuals whose relatively modest budgets simply can’t handle a protracted legal battle with one of the world’s richest men.

Aside from being a wealthy and powerful tyrant who can waste his own money on vexatious, performative arguments, Musk’s “free speech” theory is a wolf of censorship in sheep’s clothing. He and those he agrees with should be free to express their opinions, the thinking goes, but no one else should be allowed to criticize them or shut them down in response. If it falls under nebulous labels like “cancel culture” or “woke mind virus,” your speech is in fact bad for speech and therefore should not be allowed. It is brazenly etatist in its willingness to use and abuse government power to control discourse.

Musk is free to run his website however he wants, and that is exactly what he should do. But his claims to be a defender of free speech are a hypocritical farce. In reality, he is one of the greatest enemies of the First Amendment and should be recognized as such.