The new law requires social media platforms to publicly disclose how they monitor and handle hate speech, disinformation, and extremist content.

X argues that forcing it to report on its moderation policies infringes on its First Amendment rights by compelling speech against its will.

The company says content moderation is subjective and complex. It argues that the government should not be the one to dictate what is acceptable speech.

The lawsuit aligns with Musk’s well-known aversion to content regulation, putting his principles at the forefront of this legal challenge.

New York officials argue that the law is necessary for public accountability, especially given what they call X's "disturbing record" on moderation.

The law has teeth. Companies that fail to comply with the disclosure requirements face steep financial penalties for each day of violation.

This legal fight mirrors a similar case in California, where X also challenged a content moderation transparency law on First Amendment grounds.

X secured a partial victory when a federal court blocked parts of California's law, setting a precedent that may influence the New York case.

The outcome of X Corp v. James will be watched closely, as it could set a major precedent for how much states can regulate online speech.