Media Matters Sues Texas AG Ken Paxton To Stop His Bogus, Censorial ‘Investigation’

Free Speech

from the does-the-1st-amendment-still-matter? dept

We just wrote up a story about Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey and his bullshit censorial investigation into Media Matters, and I think we just got a preview of what he should expect. Back in November, Texas’ (still criminally indicted, still waiting for trial) Attorney General Ken Paxton launched a similar investigation to buddy up with Elon Musk. There weren’t as many details about his investigation (because there’s literally nothing to investigate — they’re just trying to suck up to Elon Musk who is mad about Media Matters’ speech).

In response, Media Matters is trying to end the investigation by suing Paxton in a federal district court in Maryland. Media Matters points out, accurately, that the investigation and the demands made by Paxton already are a clear violation of their 1st Amendment rights.

I am, of course, curious to see all the folks, who have been cheering on the Missouri/Louisiana lawsuit claiming that the White House’s sharing of information about election disinfo was a 1st Amendment violation for seeking to “censor” content, feel about the 1st Amendment issues here?

The complaint makes clear that Paxton made all sorts of demands for private information from Media Matters (similar to what Bailey revealed earlier this week), and also reveals that Media Matters has, in effect, had its speech silenced, as it has not reported on extremist content on ExTwitter, despite the fact that it has obtained much more evidence of it:

Two days later, Paxton issued a civil investigative demand (“Demand”) to Media Matters, commanding it to “produce [] documentary material[s] and permit inspection and copying.” Tex. Bus. & Com. Code Ann. § 17.61(a); see also Ex. B, Civil Investigation Demand, Office of the Atty. General (Nov. 21, 2023) at 7. The Demand seeks a sweeping array of materials from Media Matters and Hananoki, including documents and communications about their research and reporting, their communications with possible sources at X and its advertisers, as well as sensitive materials related to Media Matters’s operations…. Plaintiffs have no relevant connection to Texas and have been afforded zero explanation as to how they may have violated Texas law. The Demand is an extraordinarily invasive intrusion into Plaintiffs’ news gathering and reporting activities, and is plainly intended to chill those activities, acting in effect as an ongoing demand for virtually any materials Plaintiffs have—or may prepare—related to their research and reporting on X or Musk.

Paxton’s retaliatory investigation and Demand are transparent attempts to punish Plaintiffs for their constitutionally protected speech and press activities, subjecting them to a baseless and arbitrary government investigation in a state to which they have no relevant connection, and demanding the right to rifle through their most sensitive journalistic and organizational documents and communication. And his retaliatory campaign has, for now, had its intended effect: Plaintiffs have not published any articles about how Musk’s ownership has triggered a rise in political extremism on X since Paxton announced his investigation—despite a flood of tips identifying extremist content on the platform—for fear of further retaliation and harassment.

Media Matters is asking for the investigation to be declared a violation of its 1st Amendment, 4th Amendment, and 14th Amendment rights, as an attack on their speech, the privacy of their journalistic work product, and due process. They’re also arguing that it violates both Maryland and Washington DC’s journalist shield laws.

The main goal of the lawsuit is to effectively end the investigation by enjoining Paxton from moving forward, while declaring the investigation a violation of Media Matter’s rights. It also seeks legal fees along with “any and all other relief as the Court deems just and proper.”

Again, I asked this in the Bailey post, but where are the “free speech warriors” who supported the Missouri v. Biden case on this? Why aren’t they standing up to protect Media Matters from a clearly censorial vindictive investigation?

The fact that it’s nearly impossible to find anyone shows how few principles these people have beyond “punish our enemies for their speech while making sure everyone is forced to host my friends’ speech.”

And, again, these same people would be aghast if a Democratic AG started a similar investigation into Fox News, the NY Post, the Federalist, the Daily Caller, or any of their preferred news organizations. And they’d be right to do so. The government should not be investigating journalism organizations for their speech, no matter how much they disagree with them ideologically.

The 1st Amendment was written explicitly to prevent the government from this sort of retaliation. Now, let’s see if the courts remember that.

Filed Under: 1st amendment, 4th amendment, due process, journalist shield laws, ken paxton, maryland
Companies: media matters, twitter, x