In his opposition brief and motion, Defendant acknowledged that Media Matters’ reporting is protected by the First Amendment as a media company. However, in his reply brief, Defendant raised doubts about the protected status of Media Matters’ reporting, claiming that if it contained knowingly false information, it would not be protected. Despite this, Plaintiffs have provided evidence that their reporting was not defamatory and was protected under New York Times v. Sullivan.
Defendant’s evidence against Media Matters’ reporting was limited to unconfirmed allegations made by X in a lawsuit and a statement from DoubleVerify. This evidence did not undermine the likelihood that Plaintiffs’ reporting was protected by the First Amendment.
The court also found that Plaintiffs had demonstrated a likelihood of success in showing that Defendant’s actions had a chilling effect on their speech. Defendant’s investigation and legal actions against Media Matters had negatively impacted their work and caused self-censorship within the organization.
Regarding the causal link between Media Matters’ reporting and Defendant’s actions, the court found that Defendant’s public statements showed retaliatory intent. After Media Matters published an article critical of X, Musk threatened legal action on Twitter, prompting Defendant to initiate an investigation with a political bias.
In conclusion, the court determined that Plaintiffs were likely to succeed in proving that Defendant’s actions were retaliatory and had a chilling effect on Media Matters’ expression. In his public statements regarding the document preservation notice, Defendant referred to Plaintiffs as “radicals” and accused them of being “progressive tyrants masquerading as [a] news outlet[ ].” He also alleged that Media Matters was attempting to “wipe out free speech.” Later, when issuing the CID and filing the Petition, he labeled Media Matters as a “political activist organization” and “‘progressive’ activists masquerading as [a] news outlet[ ],” claiming they were trying to destroy X. These statements contradict Defendant’s acknowledgment that Media Matters is a “media company” entitled to First Amendment protections.
During an interview with Donald Trump Jr. on June 3, 2024, Defendant Bailey revealed that the purpose of his investigation was to combat what he perceived as an assault on the First Amendment, accusing Media Matters of rigging the system to take down X. He linked the investigation to the upcoming election cycle, emphasizing the importance of the investigation in the fight for free speech. On a podcast on June 5, 2024, Defendant Bailey reiterated that Media Matters was a “radical progressive advocacy group” seeking to silence conservative voices.
These overtly political messages suggest that Defendant Bailey’s targeting of Media Matters may not be for legitimate law enforcement reasons but rather for its protected First Amendment activities.
Furthermore, evidence indicates that Defendant Bailey’s stated reasons for investigating Media Matters may be pretextual. His allegations of fraudulent solicitation of donations by Media Matters are not clearly linked to the organization’s fundraising efforts. Additionally, internal documents cited by the Attorney General’s Office as evidence of wrongdoing by Media Matters appear to be strategic action plans from 2016, unrelated to the current investigation. This raises doubts about the legitimacy of the investigation.
The statement alleges that Media Matters not only issues reports about misinformation but also actively disrupts and neutralizes the operational infrastructure of specific target companies. The documents suggest that Media Matters has partnered with competitors of X, such as Facebook and Google, with strategic plans to interfere with the infrastructure systems used by these target companies for advertising purposes. However, the 2016 document referred to in the case predates Elon Musk’s acquisition of X and targeted small online publications rather than social media platforms like X (formerly Twitter). The selective quotations from Media Matters’ website by the defendant are seen as misleading and undermine the credibility of the claims made. Additionally, the unorthodox approach taken by the defendant in enforcing the CID, including filing a preemptive suit before Media Matters even received the CID, is seen as evidence of retaliatory intent. The court finds that there is likely a causal link between Plaintiffs’ First Amendment activities, the enforcement of the Missouri CID, and the chilling effect on their expression.
Source link
