Suing advertisers
"Mr. Free Speech"
is also availing himself of the courts to try to force companies to advertise on X.
On Tuesday, X filed a lawsuit against the World Federation of Advertisers ( #WFA ),
an advertising trade group,
in the Wichita Falls Division of the Northern District of Texas.
Why Wichita Falls, some 300 miles from Austin, where Tesla is located?
Because the Northern District of Texas enthusiastically embraces judge shopping,
and every case in Wichita Falls goes to #Reed #OConnor,
a George W. Bush appointee who 
routinely tries to throw out the whole of the Affordable Care Act
and is a reliable vote for anything conservatives want.
The WFA announced Thursday that it’s shutting down because it does not have the financial resources to fight X in court.
Musk already has another case before Reed O’Connor on a similarly twisted legal theory.
Late last year, X sued Media Matters in O’Connor’s court after Media Matters accurately pointed out that ads were appearing next to the Nazi and white nationalist content that is rife on X now.
That case shouldn’t exist, period,
and it especially shouldn’t be in O’Connor’s courtroom.
As Mike Masnick pointed out over at Techdirt,
X is incorporated in Nevada,
with headquarters in California.
Media Matters is in DC, and the Media Matters writer named in the suit is in Maryland.
The only connection to Texas is that Reed O’Connor is very friendly to conservatives. 
And O’Connor has already proven himself eager to help Musk along.
Although he’s a Tesla shareholder,
he has not recused himself from the case.
And even though Media Matters has a pending motion to dismiss
precisely because the lawsuit should not be in Texas,
O’Connor refused to stay discovery, which means Media Matters is racking up litigation costs while O’Connor sits on the motion to dismiss, pending since March.
Back to the advertisers and X’s latest lawsuit.
X CEO Linda Yaccarino did an “open letter” explaining why X is suing the WFA,
the Global Alliance for Responsible Media,
and four individual companies
— CVS Health, Mars, Orsted, and Unilever.
It’s an antitrust lawsuit over what X calls an “illegal boycott”
that has “cost X billions of dollars.”
How dare companies not advertise on X,
which Yaccarino calls a “unique, dynamic, and safe environment”?
The failure of private companies to give Musk and Yaccarino money is,
per Yaccarino,
“threatening your global town square.”
Had the federal courts not gone full Calvinball over the last several years, it would be easy to say this nonsense would be thrown out.
These are #private #companies,
and to the extent they are boycotting X, they have a #First #Amendment #right to do so
— in two ways:
First, boycotts based on political reasons,
such as not wanting to support Nazis,
are considered #protected #speech.
Next, the First Amendment provides for #freedom of #association and freedom from association.
You aren’t obliged to engage in speech you find morally repugnant
or spend money subsidizing someone else’s speech you find repugnant.
Indeed, that concept is at the heart of so much litigation by evangelical conservatives who don’t want to bake a cake for a same-sex couple or allow their insurer to provide birth control for their employees.
But don’t expect Reed O’Connor or any other conservative judges to display the same tender concern for Media Matters
or companies that don’t want their ads to run next to hate speech.
Musk is, without a doubt, a uniquely terrible individual.
While his wealth and fame would always insulate him from some level of consequences, thanks to the dysfunctional federal judiciary, these days,
he can truly thrive.
️the PAC doesn’t register you at all. 
️The problem here is the relative 
