Zenger Shield – Amicus Curiae Brief Draft (February 2026)

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 New York's Article I, § 8. This brief focuses exclusively on the independent violation of the New York State Constitution, drawing on federal precedent only as persuasive authority.

II. Summary of Argument The Challenged Reporting Provisions of S.B. 895B (the "Stop Hiding Hate Act") require large social media platforms to disclose detailed internal moderation practices for categories such as hate speech, disinformation, extremism, harassment, and foreign political interference. These mandates compel revelation of sensitive editorial judgments on controversial expression, violating Article I, § 8 of the New York State Constitution independently. Federal First Amendment cases provide persuasive support for why such compulsion is unconstitutional, but New York's provision—rooted in the state's unique history of resisting government oversight of speech—demands at least equivalent (and often broader) protection.

III. Argument

The Provisions Violate Article I, § 8 of the New York State Constitution Article I, § 8 of the New York Constitution provides: "Every citizen may freely speak, write and publish his or her sentiments on all subjects, being responsible for the abuse of that right; and no law shall be passed to restrain or abridge the liberty of speech or of the press." N.Y. Const. art. I, § 8.

New York courts interpret this provision independently and often more expansively than the federal First Amendment, particularly in cases involving editorial discretion, opinion, and compelled disclosures that burden expressive choices. See, e.g., 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) (qualified privilege against compelled disclosure of newsgathering materials, grounded in state constitution).

This robust protection traces directly to New York's historical commitment to unfettered expression, epitomized by the 1735 trial of John Peter Zenger. Zenger, a New York printer, faced seditious libel charges for publishing criticisms of colonial Governor Cosby. His acquittal—driven by Andrew Hamilton's defense that truth should be a justification and juries could nullify unjust laws—established a precedent against government suppression of political speech and editorial judgment. The case profoundly influenced New York's constitutional tradition, reinforcing jury independence and resistance to executive overreach in policing expression. See People v. Croswell, 3 Johns. Cas. 337 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1804) (Alexander Hamilton building on Zenger's legacy to argue for truth defense in libel). As Gouverneur Morris later noted, Zenger's acquittal was "the germ of American freedom, the morning star of that liberty which subsequently revolutionized America."

This tradition of protecting anonymous political expression continued in New York jurisprudence. In People v. Duryea, 76 Misc. 2d 948, 351 N.Y.S.2d 978 (Sup. Ct. 1974), the court struck down a local ordinance requiring identification on political handbills and leaflets, holding that compelled disclosure violated the state constitution's free speech and press guarantees. The decision emphasized anonymity as an essential safeguard for political advocacy and dissent, recognizing that forcing speakers to reveal their identity risks chilling expression and exposing individuals to retaliation. Duryea directly illustrates New York's longstanding resistance to government-mandated identification in political speech, a principle that applies with equal force to the compelled reporting of editorial moderation decisions here.

The Challenged Provisions compel platforms to disclose internal decisions about categorizing and moderating content deemed "hate speech," "disinformation," or similar—effectively forcing revelation of editorial-like judgments on protected expression. This compulsion imposes a chilling burden on expressive association and platforms' ability to independently determine speech policies, risking state scrutiny, conformity pressure, or retaliation.

Federal First Amendment cases offer persuasive authority that such compelled disclosures are unconstitutional when they intrude on core editorial functions. See NAACP v. Alabama ex rel. Patterson, 357 U.S. 449 (1958) (compelled membership disclosure burdens associational rights); Talley v. California, 362 U.S. 60 (1960) (striking down ban on anonymous handbills); McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Comm'n, 514 U.S. 334 (1995) (protecting anonymous political leaflets from compelled identification). These precedents illustrate the dangers of government-mandated transparency into expressive decisions—dangers that Article I, § 8 forbids with even greater force given New York's Zenger-rooted tradition of shielding editorial processes from state intrusion. See also O'Neill v. Oakgrove Constr., Inc., 71 N.Y.2d at 527-28 (state constitution independently mandates qualified privilege against compelled disclosure to avoid diversion of journalistic effort).

Accordingly, S.B. 895B's reporting requirements violate Article I, § 8 on independent state grounds.

IV. Conclusion For the foregoing reasons, amicus respectfully urges the Court to declare the Challenged Provisions unconstitutional under Article I, § 8 of the New York State Constitution.

Respectfully submitted, [Your Name] [Your Bar Number, Address, Phone, Email] Attorney for Amicus Curiae [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.

Certificate of Service [I certify that on [date], a copy of the foregoing was served on all parties via [method, e.g., electronic filing or mail].]