The lawsuit doesn’t contend that the reporting is inaccurate, the complaint hinges on it being correct. Twitter is suing under the “who cares” and “shut up” doctrine.
This seems contradictory. You're saying that the lawsuit doesn't say the report is inaccurate, but rather that it's not correct?
Is your comment based on a distinction between the words accurate/inaccurate and correct/incorrect?
>Twitter is suing under the “who cares” and “shut up” doctrine.
You're saying that the lawsuit is meritorious, while conceding that there is no legal basis for the lawsuit? Am I missing something?
Incorrect. For example, from the complaint[0]:
> As extensively explained above, these statements made by Defendant Media Matters were false.
Though to be fair, the lawsuit never bothers to explain how they're false or offer any actual evidence to that effect. It doesn't even attempt to cite the legal elements of any of the claims that are listed, nor does it establish any facts that one could even tangentially connect to the claims asserted.
I have a law degree (though I don't currently practice law). I doubt this lawsuit will survive a motion for summary judgment. I would even go so far as to expect that Elon/Twitter will probably be paying for Media Matters' attorney's fees for the utterly frivolous nature of the complaint.
[0] https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.txnd.38...
> leaving the false impression that these pairings are anything but what they actually are: manufactured, inorganic, and extraordinarily rare.
Those last two terms mean they're admitting Media Matters' allegations are true, even if they're uncommon.
No. Twitter is suing under the “who cares”, “shut up” and “no u” doctrine, which you can do in courts that do not have anti-SLAPP rules in place.
>The company filed its lawsuit in Texas, which is neither its nor Media Matters’ primary place of business. As legal blogger Ken White noted, a Texas filing protects X from claims that it filed a strategic lawsuit against public participation (or SLAPP), something it might face in its home base of California.
https://www.theverge.com/2023/11/20/23970274/x-elon-musk-med...
No, this is incorrect. I believe you're unintentionally conflating two things. Not having an anti-SLAPP law just means that Media Matters won't have the luxury of quickly striking the complaint before having to respond to it.
It does not mean that vexatious litigants are free to file a lawsuit without making actual legal claims recognized by the courts.
Media Matters can (and will) still file a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the complaint, and will almost certainly prevail based on the clear deficiency of the complaint which doesn't even bother to cite the legal elements of the three claims it lists.
So yes, my statement was correct, you just aren't familiar with how it works.