X is fighting Andrew Tate's attempt to unmask his critics

"X has objected as well - saying that among several other legal deficiencies, the request puts First Amendment rights seriously in jeopardy. The complaint says the United States Supreme Court has long recognized that the right to speak anonymously on the internet, including via social media platforms, is protected. While these protections aren't absolute, it says the suit hasn't satisfied the First Amendment safeguards required to prevent chilling effects."

"The Tate brothers filed suit against the owners of more than a dozen social media accounts - several of them run pseudonymously - last year, claiming the accounts engaged in a "Conspiratorial Plot" to defame them. After a Florida court said the claims couldn't be brought against unidentified defendants, they filed an amended complaint against the users they could identify, and a complaint against X demanding it disclose the anonymous account holders in order to go after them, too."

"Last month, an attorney for the so-called Doe defendants filed a motion for a protective order seeking to block their personal information from being disclosed. Now, in a May 11th response, X has objected as well. X says the request puts First Amendment rights seriously in jeopardy and argues that the suit hasn't satisfied the safeguards required to prevent chilling effects."

"The complaint says the suit hasn't satisfied the First Amendment safeguards that are required to prevent chilling effects - and "deter participation in the marketplace of ideas out of fear they could be unmasked for expressing potentially unpopular opinions." It also states that protections for anonymous speech aren't absolute, but the request fails to meet the required standards to justify disclosure."

X is contesting a demand to disclose anonymous social media account holders connected to a defamation-related lawsuit involving Andrew and Tristan Tate. The Tate brothers sued owners of more than a dozen accounts, alleging a conspiratorial plot to defame them. After a Florida court ruled the claims could not proceed against unidentified defendants, the plaintiffs amended the complaint against identifiable users and added a complaint against X seeking disclosure of anonymous account holders. A motion for a protective order was filed to prevent release of personal information. X responded that the request has legal deficiencies and that forcing disclosure would seriously jeopardize First Amendment rights by deterring participation in the marketplace of ideas due to fear of being unmasked.

Read at The Verge