[Draft] Amicus Curiae Brief of [Your Name/Organization] in Support of Plaintiff X Corp.'s Position
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
X CORP.,
Plaintiff,
v.
LETITIA JAMES, in her official capacity as Attorney General of the State of New York,
Defendant.
Case No. 1:25-cv-05068 (JPC)
BRIEF OF AMICUS CURIAE [Your Name] IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF
I. Interest of Amicus Curiae
Amicus is a practicing attorney with extensive experience in free speech litigation, including as plaintiff in Stewart v. Taylor (challenging compelled speech in election contexts) and co-counsel in Majors v. Abell (defending anonymous political expression). Amicus has a direct interest in preserving robust protections against government-compelled disclosure of editorial judgments, particularly under both federal and state constitutions. This brief draws on amicus's expertise to highlight the independent force of New York's Article I, § 8 in invalidating the Challenged Reporting Provisions of S.B. 895B.
II. Summary of Argument
The Challenged Provisions of S.B. 895B (the "Stop Hiding Hate Act") require large social media platforms to submit detailed reports on their content moderation practices for categories including hate speech, racism, extremism, radicalization, disinformation, misinformation, harassment, and foreign political interference. These mandates compel disclosure of highly sensitive editorial decisions—core expressive conduct protected by the First Amendment and, independently, by Article I, § 8 of the New York State Constitution. The provisions fail exacting scrutiny under federal law and violate New York's broader speech guarantees rooted in its historical tradition of resisting government oversight of expression.
III. Argument
A. The Provisions Violate the First Amendment by Compelling Disclosure of Protected Editorial Judgments
As detailed in Plaintiff's complaint, the reporting requirements impermissibly burden platforms' First Amendment-protected editorial discretion. Social media moderation involves expressive choices about what speech to amplify, demote, or remove—analogous to newspaper editorial decisions. See NetChoice, LLC v. Paxton, 144 S. Ct. 2301 (2024) (per curiam) (platforms exercise editorial judgment).
Compelled disclosure of these judgments triggers exacting scrutiny under NAACP v. Alabama ex rel. Patterson, 357 U.S. 449 (1958), and Americans for Prosperity Found. v. Bonta, 141 S. Ct. 2373 (2021), requiring a sufficient relation to a sufficiently important governmental interest and narrow tailoring. New York's asserted interest in consumer transparency is legitimate but not compelling here, as less burdensome alternatives (e.g., voluntary disclosures or user education) exist. Moreover, the law risks chilling moderation decisions through fear of state scrutiny or retaliation, akin to compelled identification struck down in Talley v. California, 362 U.S. 60 (1960) (anonymous handbills), and McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Comm'n, 514 U.S. 334 (1995) (anonymous political leaflets).
Plaintiff's prior success challenging California's similar AB 587 in X Corp. v. Bonta (N.D. Cal.) reinforces this analysis: compelled reporting on moderation categories unconstitutionally interferes with editorial freedom.
B. Independently, the Provisions Violate Article I, § 8 of the New York State Constitution
New York's free speech guarantee provides independent and often broader protection than the federal First Amendment. Article I, § 8 states: "Every citizen may freely speak, write and publish his or her sentiments on all subjects... and no law shall be passed to restrain or abridge the liberty of speech or of the press." N.Y. Const. art. I, § 8.
This provision has deep historical roots in New York's commitment to unfettered expression, most vividly illustrated by the landmark 1735 trial of John Peter Zenger. Zenger, a New York printer, was prosecuted for seditious libel after publishing criticisms of colonial Governor Cosby. His defense—truth as a justification and the jury's power to decide law—resulted in acquittal, establishing a precedent against government suppression of political speech that profoundly shaped New York's constitutional tradition. See People v. Croswell, 3 Johns. Cas. 337 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1804) (Alexander Hamilton arguing for truth defense in libel cases, building directly on Zenger's legacy). The Zenger acquittal is widely regarded as the "germ of American freedom" and a foundational influence on New York's robust press protections, emphasizing jury independence and resistance to executive overreach in policing expression.
The Challenged Provisions compel platforms to disclose detailed internal decisions about categorizing and moderating content labeled as "hate speech," "disinformation," or similar—effectively forcing revelation of editorial judgments on controversial expression. This compulsion mirrors the governmental oversight of the press that Zenger's acquittal rejected, burdening expressive association and chilling platforms' ability to determine their own speech policies without state-mandated transparency that risks conformity pressure or retaliation.
New York courts have repeatedly held that Article I, § 8 demands heightened scrutiny for such burdens on core speech activities, often exceeding federal standards in cases involving opinion, editorial, or anonymous expression. See Immuno AG v. Moor-Jankowski, 77 N.Y.2d 235 (1991) (broad protections for opinion and editorial content); O'Neill v. Oakgrove Constr., Inc., 71 N.Y.2d 521 (1988) (strong shield for newsgathering and editorial processes). Given New York's unique history—including Zenger's role in establishing jury nullification against libel prosecutions—the state constitution forbids compelled disclosures that intrude on editorial discretion in the way S895B does. The provisions thus violate Article I, § 8 independently of any federal analysis.
IV. Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, amicus respectfully urges the Court to deny Defendant's motion to dismiss and declare the Challenged Provisions unconstitutional under both the First Amendment and Article I, § 8 of the New York Constitution.
Respectfully submitted,
[Your Name]
[Your Bar Info / Contact]
[Date: February 2026]
Footnote on AI Assistance: This brief was drafted with the assistance of AI tools for research, drafting efficiency, and organization. All legal arguments, citations, analysis, and conclusions have been reviewed, edited, and adopted by counsel.
This should be close to what we had—Zenger integrated as the historical capstone for the state claim, federal arguments summarized, your interest noted. If it's missing sections (e.g., more on the stay stipulation, jurisdictional facts, or prayer for relief), or if you want to expand/shorten the Zenger discussion, add more NY cases (like People ex rel. Arcara v. Cloud Books), or adjust the tone, paste any specific changes or snippets from your other tab. Ready to iterate!
