The US health department on Friday declared a public health emergency for California in response to devastating wildfires in the Los Angeles area that have so far killed 10 people and destroyed more than 10,000 structures.
As of Friday morning, 153,000 residents are under evacuation orders, and an additional 166,800 are under evacuation warnings, according to local reports.
Wildfires pose numerous health risks, including exposure to extreme heat, burns, harmful air pollution, and emotional distress.
“We will do all we can to assist California officials with responding to the health impacts of the devastating wildfires going on in Los Angeles County,” US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Xavier Becerra said in a statement. “We are working closely with state and local health authorities, as well as our partners across the federal government, and stand ready to provide public health and medical support.”
The Administration for Strategic Preparedness and Response (ASPR), an agency within HHS, is monitoring hospitals and shelters in the LA area and is prepared to deploy responders, medical equipment, and supplies upon the state’s request.
Let’s start with the meteorology. The Palisades wildfire and other nearby conflagrations were well-predicted days in advance. After a typically arid summer and fall, the Los Angeles area has also had a dry winter so far. December, January, February, and March are usually the wettest months in the region by far. More than 80 percent of Los Angeles’ rain comes during these colder months. But this year, during December, the region received, on average, less than one-tenth of an inch of rainfall. Normal totals are on the order of 2.5 inches in December.
So, the foliage in the area was already very dry, effectively extending the region’s wildfire season. Then, strong Santa Ana winds were predicted for this week due, in part, to the extreme cold observed in the eastern United States and high pressure over the Great Basin region of the country. “Red flag” winds were forecast locally, which indicates that winds could combine with dry grounds to spread wildfires efficiently. The direct cause of the Palisades fire is yet unknown.
Wildfires during the winter months in California are not a normal occurrence, but they are not unprecedented either. Scientists, however, generally agree that a warmer planet is extending wildfire seasons such as those observed in California.
“Climate change, including increased heat, extended drought, and a thirsty atmosphere, has been a key driver in increasing the risk and extent of wildfires in the western United States during the last two decades,” the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration concludes. “Wildfires require the alignment of a number of factors, including temperature, humidity, and the lack of moisture in fuels, such as trees, shrubs, grasses, and forest debris. All these factors have strong direct or indirect ties to climate variability and climate change.”
The milk-related risk of H5N1 is only from raw milk; pasteurized milk does not contain live virus and is safe to drink. Pasteurization, which heats milk to a specific temperature for a specified amount of time, kills a variety of bacteria and viruses, including bird flu. Influenza viruses, generally, are considered susceptible to heat treatments because they have an outer layer called an envelope, which can be destabilized by heat. Studies that have specifically looked at the effectiveness of heat-killing treatments against H5N1 have repeatedly found that pasteurization effectively inactivates the virus.
The advent of pasteurization is considered a public health triumph. Its adoption of a safe milk supply contributed to a dramatic reduction in infant deaths in the early 20th century. Before that, milkborne infections—including human and bovine tuberculosis, brucellosis, salmonellosis, streptococcal infections, diphtheria, and “summer diarrhea”—were common killers of infants.
As such, public health officials have long advised people against consuming raw milk, which has no evidence-based health benefits. Raw milk consumption, meanwhile, is linked to higher rates of outbreaks from pathogens including Salmonella, Listeria monocytogenes, toxin-producing E. coli, Brucella, Campylobacter, and many other bacteria.
Risky drinking
Since H5N1 was found spreading among dairy cows in March, health experts have warned about the additional risk of consuming raw milk. Still, consumption of raw milk has continued, and surprisingly increased, as supporters of the dangerous practice have accused health officials of “fearmongering.”
When the retail sampling of Raw Farm’s milk came back positive, the California Department of Food and Agriculture (CDFA) conducted testing at the company’s locations, which were negative for the virus. The CDFA will now begin testing Raw Farm’s milk for bird flu twice a week.
The recalled milk has lot code 20241109 and a “best by” date of November 27, 2024, printed on the packaging.
“Drinking or accidentally inhaling raw milk containing bird flu virus may lead to illness,” California’s public health department said. “In addition, touching your eyes, nose, or mouth with unwashed hands after touching raw milk with bird flu virus may also lead to infection.”
Some US dairy workers who contracted the virus from infected cows reported having had milk splash in their eyes and face. A common symptom of H5N1 infections in humans during the dairy outbreak has been conjunctivitis, aka eye inflammation.
So, in all, Missouri’s case count in the H5N1 outbreak will stay at one for now, and there remains no evidence of human-to-human transmission. Though both the household contact and the index case had evidence of an exposure, their identical blood test results and simultaneous symptom development suggest that they were exposed at the same time by a single source—what that source was, we may never know.
California and Washington
While the virus seems to have hit a dead end in Missouri, it’s still running rampant in California. Since state officials announced the first dairy herd infections at the end of August, the state has now tallied 137 infected herds and at least 13 infected dairy farm workers. California, the country’s largest dairy producer, now has the most herd infections and human cases in the outbreak, which was first confirmed in March.
In the briefing Thursday, officials announced another front in the bird flu fight. A chicken farm in Washington state with about 800,000 birds became infected with a different strain of H5 bird flu than the one circulating among dairy farms. This strain likely came from wild birds. While the chickens on the infected farms were being culled, the virus spread to farmworkers. So far, two workers have been confirmed to be infected, and five others are presumed to be positive.
As of publication time, at least 31 humans have been confirmed infected with H5 bird flu this year.
With the spread of bird flu in dairies and the fall bird migration underway, the virus will continue to have opportunities to jump to mammals and gain access to people. Officials have also expressed anxiety as seasonal flu ramps up, given influenza’s penchant for swapping genetic fragments to generate new viral combinations. The reassortment and exposure to humans increases the risk of the virus adapting to spread from human to human and spark an outbreak.
The San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency (SFMTA) board has agreed to spend $212 million to get its Muni Metro light rail off floppy disks.
The Muni Metro’s Automatic Train Control System (ATCS) has required 5¼-inch floppy disks since 1998, when it was installed at San Francisco’s Market Street subway station. The system uses three floppy disks for loading DOS software that controls the system’s central servers. Michael Roccaforte, an SFMTA spokesperson, gave further details on how the light rail operates to Ars Technica in April, saying: “When a train enters the subway, its onboard computer connects to the train control system to run the train in automatic mode, where the trains drive themselves while the operators supervise. When they exit the subway, they disconnect from the ATCS and return to manual operation on the street.” After starting initial planning in 2018, the SFMTA originally expected to move to a floppy-disk-free train control system by 2028. But with COVID-19 preventing work for 18 months, the estimated completion date was delayed.
On October 15, the SFMTA moved closer to ditching floppies when its board approved a contract with Hitachi Rail for implementing a new train control system that doesn’t use floppy disks, the San Francisco Chronicle reported. Hitachi Rail tech is said to power train systems, including Japan’s bullet train, in more than 50 countries. The $212 million contract includes support services from Hitachi for “20 to 25 years,” the Chronicle said.
The new control system is supposed to be five generations ahead of what Muni is using now, Muni director Julie Kirschbaum said, per the Chronicle. Further illustrating the light rail’s dated tech, the current ATCS was designed to last 20 to 25 years, meaning its expected expiration date was in 2023. The system still works fine, but the risk of floppy disk data degradation and challenges in maintaining expertise in 1990s programming languages have further encouraged the SFMTA to seek upgrades.
California’s infections bring the country’s total number of affected herds to 255 in 14 states, according to the USDA.
In a new release Thursday, California health officials worked to ease alarm about the human case, emphasizing that the risk to the general public remains low.
“Ongoing health checks of individuals who interact with potentially infected animals helped us quickly detect and respond to this possible human case. Fortunately, as we’ve seen in other states with human infections, the individual has experienced mild symptoms,” Tomás Aragón, director of California’s Department of Public Health, said. “We want to emphasize that the risk to the general public is low, and people who interact with potentially infected animals should take prevention measures.”
The release noted that in the past four months, the health department has distributed more than 340,000 respirators, 1.3 million gloves, 160,000 goggles and face shields, and 168,000 bouffant caps to farm workers. The state has also received 5,000 doses of seasonal flu vaccine earmarked for farm workers and is working to distribute those vaccines to local health departments.
Still, herd infections and human cases continue to tick up. Influenza researchers and other health experts are anxiously following the unusual dairy outbreak—the first time an avian influenza is known to have spilled over to and caused an outbreak in cattle. The more opportunities the virus has to spread and adapt to mammals, the more chances it could begin spreading among humans, potentially sparking an outbreak or even a pandemic.
“Almost any digitally altered content, when left up to an arbitrary individual on the Internet, could be considered harmful,” Mendez said, even something seemingly benign like AI-generated estimates of voter turnouts shared online.
Additionally, the Supreme Court has held that “even deliberate lies (said with ‘actual malice’) about the government are constitutionally protected” because the right to criticize the government is at the heart of the First Amendment.
“These same principles safeguarding the people’s right to criticize government and government officials apply even in the new technological age when media may be digitally altered: civil penalties for criticisms on the government like those sanctioned by AB 2839 have no place in our system of governance,” Mendez said.
According to Mendez, X posts like Kohls’ parody videos are the “political cartoons of today” and California’s attempt to “bulldoze over the longstanding tradition of critique, parody, and satire protected by the First Amendment” is not justified by even “a well-founded fear of a digitally manipulated media landscape.” If officials find deepfakes are harmful to election prospects, there is already recourse through privacy torts, copyright infringement, or defamation laws, Mendez suggested.
Kosseff told Ars that there could be more narrow ways that government officials looking to protect election integrity could regulate deepfakes online. The Supreme Court has suggested that deepfakes spreading disinformation on the mechanics of voting could possibly be regulated, Kosseff said.
Mendez got it “exactly right” by concluding that the best remedy for election-related deepfakes is more speech, Kosseff said. As Mendez described it, a vague law like AB 2839 seemed to only “uphold the State’s attempt to suffocate” speech.
Parody is vital to democratic debate, judge says
The only part of AB 2839 that survives strict scrutiny, Mendez noted, is a section describing audio disclosures in a “clearly spoken manner and in a pitch that can be easily heard by the average listener, at the beginning of the audio, at the end of the audio, and, if the audio is greater than two minutes in length, interspersed within the audio at intervals of not greater than two minutes each.”
In his complaint, Christopher Kohls—who is known as “Mr Reagan” on YouTube and X (formerly Twitter)—said that he was suing “to defend all Americans’ right to satirize politicians.” He claimed that California laws, AB 2655 and AB 2839, were urgently passed after X owner Elon Musk shared a partly AI-generated parody video on the social media platform that Kohls created to “lampoon” presidential hopeful Kamala Harris.
AB 2655, known as the “Defending Democracy from Deepfake Deception Act,” prohibits creating “with actual malice” any “materially deceptive audio or visual media of a candidate for elective office with the intent to injure the candidate’s reputation or to deceive a voter into voting for or against the candidate, within 60 days of the election.” It requires social media platforms to block or remove any reported deceptive material and label “certain additional content” deemed “inauthentic, fake, or false” to prevent election interference.
The other law at issue, AB 2839, titled “Elections: deceptive media in advertisements,” bans anyone from “knowingly distributing an advertisement or other election communication” with “malice” that “contains certain materially deceptive content” within 120 days of an election in California and, in some cases, within 60 days after an election.
Both bills were signed into law on September 17, and Kohls filed his complaint that day, alleging that both must be permanently blocked as unconstitutional.
Elon Musk called out for boosting Kohls’ video
Kohls’ video that Musk shared seemingly would violate these laws by using AI to make Harris appear to give speeches that she never gave. The manipulated audio sounds like Harris, who appears to be mocking herself as a “diversity hire” and claiming that any critics must be “sexist and racist.”
“Making fun of presidential candidates and other public figures is an American pastime,” Kohls said, defending his parody video. He pointed to a long history of political cartoons and comedic impressions of politicians, claiming that “AI-generated commentary, though a new mode of speech, falls squarely within this tradition.”
While Kohls’ post was clearly marked “parody” in the YouTube title and in his post on X, that “parody” label did not carry over when Musk re-posted the video. This lack of a parody label on Musk’s post—which got approximately 136 million views, roughly twice as many as Kohls’ post—set off California governor Gavin Newsom, who immediately blasted Musk’s post and vowed on X to make content like Kohls’ video “illegal.”
In response to Newsom, Musk poked fun at the governor, posting that “I checked with renowned world authority, Professor Suggon Deeznutz, and he said parody is legal in America.” For his part, Kohls put up a second parody video targeting Harris, calling Newsom a “bully” in his complaint and claiming that he had to “punch back.”
Shortly after these online exchanges, California lawmakers allegedly rushed to back the governor, Kohls’ complaint said. They allegedly amended the deepfake bills to ensure that Kohls’ video would be banned when the bills were signed into law, replacing a broad exception for satire in one law with a narrower safe harbor that Kohls claimed would chill humorists everywhere.
“For videos,” his complaint said, disclaimers required under AB 2839 must “appear for the duration of the video” and “must be in a font size ‘no smaller than the largest font size of other text appearing in the visual media.'” For a satirist like Kohls who uses large fonts to optimize videos for mobile, this “would require the disclaimer text to be so large that it could not fit on the screen,” his complaint said.
On top of seeming impractical, the disclaimers would “fundamentally” alter “the nature of his message” by removing the comedic effect for viewers by distracting from what allegedly makes the videos funny—”the juxtaposition of over-the-top statements by the AI-generated ‘narrator,’ contrasted with the seemingly earnest style of the video as if it were a genuine campaign ad,” Kohls’ complaint alleged.
Imagine watching Saturday Night Live with prominent disclaimers taking up your TV screen, his complaint suggested.
It’s possible that Kohls’ concerns about AB 2839 are unwarranted. Newsom spokesperson Izzy Gardon told Politico that Kohls’ parody label on X was good enough to clear him of liability under the law.
“Requiring them to use the word ‘parody’ on the actual video avoids further misleading the public as the video is shared across the platform,” Gardon said. “It’s unclear why this conservative activist is suing California. This new disclosure law for election misinformation isn’t any more onerous than laws already passed in other states, including Alabama.”
Amazon may be forced to meet some unionized delivery drivers at the bargaining table after a regional National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) director determined Thursday that Amazon is a joint employer of contractors hired to ensure the e-commerce giant delivers its packages when promised.
This seems like a potentially big loss for Amazon, which had long argued that delivery service partners (DSPs) exclusively employed the delivery drivers, not Amazon. By rejecting its employer status, Amazon had previously argued that it had no duty to bargain with driver unions and no responsibility for alleged union busting, The Washington Post reported.
But now, after a yearlong investigation, the NLRB has issued what Amazon delivery drivers’ union has claimed was “a groundbreaking decision that sets the stage for Amazon delivery drivers across the country to organize with the Teamsters.”
In a press release reviewed by Ars, the NLRB regional director confirmed that as a joint employer, Amazon had “unlawfully failed and refused to bargain with the union” after terminating their DSP’s contract and terminating “all unionized employees.” The NLRB found that rather than bargaining with the union, Amazon “delayed start times by grounding vans and not preparing packages for loading,” withheld information from the union, and “made unlawful threats.” Teamsters said those threats included “job loss” and “intimidating employees with security guards.”
Sean M. O’Brien, the Teamsters general president, claimed the win for drivers unionizing not just in California but for nearly 280,000 drivers nationwide.
“Amazon drivers have taken their future into their own hands and won a monumental determination that makes clear Amazon has a legal obligation to bargain with its drivers over their working conditions,” O’Brien said. “This strike has paved the way for every other Amazon worker in the country to demand what they deserve and to get Amazon to the bargaining table.”
Unless a settlement is reached, the NLRB will soon “issue a complaint against Amazon and prosecute the corporate giant at a trial” after finding that “Amazon engaged in a long list of egregious unfair labor practices at its Palmdale facility,” Teamsters said.
Apparently downplaying the NLRB determination, Amazon is claiming that the Teamsters are trying to “misrepresent what is happening here.” Seemingly Amazon is taking issue with the union claiming that an NLRB determination on the merits of their case is a major win when the NLRB has yet to issue a final ruling.
According to the NLRB’s press release, “a merit determination is not a ‘Board decision/ruling’—it is the first step in the NLRB’s General Counsel litigating the allegations after investigating an unfair labor practice charge.”
Amazon’s spokesperson, Eileen Hards, told Ars that the NLRB office confirmed to Amazon that it will be “dismissing most of the Teamsters’ more significant claims it filed last year in Palmdale.” That apparently includes dismissing the Teamsters’ claims that Amazon unlawfully terminated its contract with one of their DSPs and that Amazon had a legal obligation to honor the Teamsters’ contract with that DSP.
Next, the NLRB will determine if the “remaining allegations should be decided by an administrative law judge,” Hards said. After that, Amazon will have opportunities to appeal any unfavorable rulings, first to the Board and then to a federal appeals court, the NLRB confirmed to Ars.
Hards confirmed that Amazon still expects all the Teamsters’ remaining claims will be dismissed.
“As we have said all along, there is no merit to the Teamsters’ claims,” Hards told Ars. “If and when the agency decides it wants to litigate the remaining allegations, we expect they will be dismissed as well.”
But Hards declined to comment on the impacts of the NLRB’s determination that Amazon is a joint employer of the unionized delivery drivers.
One Amazon driver in Palmdale, Jessie Moreno, said that worker conditions for Amazon drivers could improve because of the determination.
“Amazon can no longer dodge responsibility for our low wages and dangerous working conditions, and it cannot continue to get away with committing unfair labor practices,” Moreno said. “We are Amazon workers, and we are holding Amazon accountable.”
Amazon drivers uniting “like never before”
The NLRB determination came following a complaint from 84 Amazon workers from Palmdale, California, who became the first Amazon delivery drivers to unionize in April 2023, represented by Teamsters Local 396.
While their DSP recognized the union, workers launched an unfair labor strike in June 2023 after Amazon allegedly “engaged in dozens of unfair labor practices in violation of federal labor law in an effort to quash workers’ organizing efforts,” the Teamsters said.
The picket line quickly expanded “to over 50 Amazon warehouses across 10 states,” the Teamsters said. Most recently, drivers in Skokie, Illinois, “launched their own unfair labor practice strike in June 2024,” right around the same time that “more than 5,500 members of the Amazon Labor Union in New York voted by an overwhelming 98.3 percent to affiliate with the Teamsters.”
In their blog, the Teamsters said that Amazon “has avoided responsibility for its drivers through its DSP subcontractor business model” since 2018, but drivers hope that yesterday’s NLRB determination could put an end to the dodgy tactic.
“The NLRB’s joint employer determination shatters that myth” that “DSP drivers are not official employees of Amazon” and “makes clear that through its DSP business model, Amazon exercises widespread control over drivers’ labor and working conditions, making Amazon the drivers’ employer,” the Teamsters said.
The Teamsters said that they are “confident” that “the NLRB’s regional determination for the Palmdale workers will extend to Amazon DSP drivers who unionize nationwide.” One union member and Amazon driver, Brandi Diaz, celebrated what she considered to be the US government recognizing that the DSP program is a “sham.”
“We wear Amazon uniforms, we drive Amazon vans, and Amazon controls every minute of our day,” Diaz said. “Amazon can no longer have all the benefits of their own fleet of drivers without the responsibilities that come with it. The time has come for Amazon drivers across the country to organize with the Teamsters and demand what we deserve.”
Drivers are currently fighting to increase wages and improve driver safety amid what they claim are unchecked dangerous conditions they must navigate as Amazon drivers. Moreno said that the NLRB determination was a significant step toward unionizing more drivers and ending Amazon’s allegedly unfair labor practices nationwide.
“We have been on strike to stop Amazon’s lawbreaking and we are winning at the NLRB, while we are uniting Amazon workers across the country like never before,” Moreno said.
San Francisco’s city attorney David Chiu is suing to shut down 16 of the most popular websites and apps allowing users to “nudify” or “undress” photos of mostly women and girls who have been increasingly harassed and exploited by bad actors online.
These sites, Chiu’s suit claimed, are “intentionally” designed to “create fake, nude images of women and girls without their consent,” boasting that any users can upload any photo to “see anyone naked” by using tech that realistically swaps the faces of real victims onto AI-generated explicit images.
“In California and across the country, there has been a stark increase in the number of women and girls harassed and victimized by AI-generated” non-consensual intimate imagery (NCII) and “this distressing trend shows no sign of abating,” Chiu’s suit said.
“Given the widespread availability and popularity” of nudify websites, “San Franciscans and Californians face the threat that they or their loved ones may be victimized in this manner,” Chiu’s suit warned.
In a press conference, Chiu said that this “first-of-its-kind lawsuit” has been raised to defend not just Californians, but “a shocking number of women and girls across the globe”—from celebrities like Taylor Swift to middle and high school girls. Should the city official win, each nudify site risks fines of $2,500 for each violation of California consumer protection law found.
On top of media reports sounding alarms about the AI-generated harm, law enforcement has joined the call to ban so-called deepfakes.
Chiu said the harmful deepfakes are often created “by exploiting open-source AI image generation models,” such as earlier versions of Stable Diffusion, that can be honed or “fine-tuned” to easily “undress” photos of women and girls that are frequently yanked from social media. While later versions of Stable Diffusion make such “disturbing” forms of misuse much harder, San Francisco city officials noted at the press conference that fine-tunable earlier versions of Stable Diffusion are still widely available to be abused by bad actors.
In the US alone, cops are currently so bogged down by reports of fake AI child sex images that it’s making it hard to investigate child abuse cases offline, and these AI cases are expected to continue spiking “exponentially.” The AI abuse has spread so widely that “the FBI has warned of an uptick in extortion schemes using AI generated non-consensual pornography,” Chiu said at the press conference. “And the impact on victims has been devastating,” harming “their reputations and their mental health,” causing “loss of autonomy,” and “in some instances causing individuals to become suicidal.”
Suing on behalf of the people of the state of California, Chiu is seeking an injunction requiring nudify site owners to cease operation of “all websites they own or operate that are capable of creating AI-generated” non-consensual intimate imagery of identifiable individuals. It’s the only way, Chiu said, to hold these sites “accountable for creating and distributing AI-generated NCII of women and girls and for aiding and abetting others in perpetrating this conduct.”
He also wants an order requiring “any domain-name registrars, domain-name registries, webhosts, payment processors, or companies providing user authentication and authorization services or interfaces” to “restrain” nudify site operators from launching new sites to prevent any further misconduct.
Chiu’s suit redacts the names of the most harmful sites his investigation uncovered but claims that in the first six months of 2024, the sites “have been visited over 200 million times.”
While victims typically have little legal recourse, Chiu believes that state and federal laws prohibiting deepfake pornography, revenge pornography, and child pornography, as well as California’s unfair competition law, can be wielded to take down all 16 sites. Chiu expects that a win will serve as a warning to other nudify site operators that more takedowns are likely coming.
“We are bringing this lawsuit to get these websites shut down, but we also want to sound the alarm,” Chiu said at the press conference. “Generative AI has enormous promise, but as with all new technologies, there are unanticipated consequences and criminals seeking to exploit them. We must be clear that this is not innovation. This is sexual abuse.”
Elon Musk’s fight defending X’s content moderation decisions isn’t just with hate speech researchers and advertisers. He has also long been battling regulators, and this week, he seemed positioned to secure a potentially big win in California, where he’s hoping to permanently block a law that he claims unconstitutionally forces his platform to justify its judgment calls.
At a hearing Wednesday, three judges in the 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals seemed inclined to agree with Musk that a California law requiring disclosures from social media companies that clearly explain their content moderation choices likely violates the First Amendment.
Passed in 2022, AB-587 forces platforms like X to submit a “terms of service report” detailing how they moderate several categories of controversial content. Those categories include hate speech or racism, extremism or radicalization, disinformation or misinformation, harassment, and foreign political interference, which X’s lawyer, Joel Kurtzberg, told judges yesterday “are the most controversial categories of so-called awful but lawful speech.”
The law would seemingly require more transparency than ever from X, making it easy for users to track exactly how much controversial content X flags and removes—and perhaps most notably for advertisers, how many users viewed concerning content.
To block the law, X sued in 2023, arguing that California was trying to dictate its terms of service and force the company to make statements on content moderation that could generate backlash. X worried that the law “impermissibly” interfered with both “the constitutionally protected editorial judgments” of social media companies, as well as impacted users’ speech by requiring companies “to remove, demonetize, or deprioritize constitutionally protected speech that the state deems undesirable or harmful.”
Any companies found to be non-compliant could face stiff fines of up to $15,000 per violation per day, which X considered “draconian.” But last year, a lower court declined to block the law, prompting X to appeal, and yesterday, the appeals court seemed more sympathetic to X’s case.
At the hearing, Kurtzberg told judges that the law was “deeply threatening to the well-established First Amendment interests” of an “extraordinary diversity of” people, which is why X’s complaint was supported by briefs from reporters, freedom of the press advocates, First Amendment scholars, “conservative entities,” and people across the political spectrum.
All share “a deep concern about a statute that, on its face, is aimed at pressuring social media companies to change their content moderation policies, so as to carry less or even no expression that’s viewed by the state as injurious to its people,” Kurtzberg told judges.
When the court pointed out that seemingly the law simply required X to abide by content moderation policies for each category defined in its own terms of service—and did not compel X to adopt any policy or position that it did not choose—Kurtzberg pushed back.
“They don’t mandate us to define the categories in a specific way, but they mandate us to take a position on what the legislature makes clear are the most controversial categories to moderate and define,” Kurtzberg said. “We are entitled to respond to the statute by saying we don’t define hate speech or racism. But the report also asks about policies that are supposedly, quote, ‘intended’ to address those categories, which is a judgment call.”
“This is very helpful,” Judge Anthony Johnstone responded. “Even if you don’t yourself define those categories in the terms of service, you read the law as requiring you to opine or discuss those categories, even if they’re not part of your own terms,” and “you are required to tell California essentially your views on hate speech, extremism, harassment, foreign political interference, how you define them or don’t define them, and what you choose to do about them?”
“That is correct,” Kurtzberg responded, noting that X considered those categories the most “fraught” and “difficult to define.”
Enlarge/ A pedestrian walks past a flown Falcon 9 booster at SpaceX headquarters in Hawthorne, California, on Tuesday, the same day Elon Musk said he will relocate the headquarters to Texas.
Elon Musk said Tuesday that he will move the headquarters of SpaceX and his social media company X from California to Texas in response to a new gender identity law signed by California Governor Gavin Newsom.
Musk’s announcement, made via a post on X, follows his decision in 2021 to move the headquarters of the electric car company Tesla from Palo Alto, California, to Austin, Texas, in the wake of coronavirus lockdowns in the Bay Area the year before. Now, two of Musk’s other major holdings are making symbolic moves out of California: SpaceX to the company’s Starbase launch facility near Brownsville, Texas, and X to Austin.
The new gender identity law, signed by Governor Newsom, a Democrat, on Monday, bars school districts in California from requiring teachers to disclose a change in a student’s gender identification or sexual orientation to their parents without the child’s permission. Musk wrote on X that the law was the “final straw” prompting the relocation to Texas, where the billionaire executive and his companies could take advantage of lower taxes and light-touch regulations.
“Because of this law and the many others that preceded it, attacking both families and companies, SpaceX will now move its HQ from Hawthorne, California, to Starbase, Texas,” Musk wrote Tuesday on X.
The first-in-the-nation law in California is a flashpoint in the struggle between conservative school boards concerned about parental rights and proponents for the privacy rights of LGBTQ people.
“I did make it clear to Governor Newsom about a year ago that laws of this nature would force families and companies to leave California to protect their children,” wrote Musk, who on Saturday endorsed former President Donald Trump, the Republican nominee in this year’s presidential election.
In a statement, Newsom’s office said the law “does not allow a student’s name or gender identity to be changed on an official school record without parental consent” and “does not take away or undermine parents’ rights.”
What does this mean for SpaceX?
Musk’s comments on X didn’t mention details about the implications of his companies’ moves to Texas. However, while Tesla’s corporate headquarters relocated to Texas in 2021, the company still produces cars in California and announced a new engineering hub in Palo Alto last year. The situation with SpaceX is likely to be similar.
Since Musk bought Twitter in 2022, he renamed it X, rewrote the network’s policies on content moderation, and laid off most of the company’s staff, reducing its workforce to around 1,500 employees. With vast manufacturing capacities, SpaceX currently has more than 13,000 employees, so a relocation for Musk’s space company would affect more people and potentially be more disruptive than one at X.
SpaceX’s current headquarters in Hawthorne, California, serves as a factory, engineering design center, and mission control for the company’s rockets and spacecraft. Relocating these facilities wouldn’t be easy, but SpaceX may not need to.
