Before the deal for Twitter was struck, the company said that it had no plans to reverse any past policy decisions and that its employees and managers make the day-to-day decisions. From his public comments relating to his belief that Twitter has a lot of unlocked potential, it is anticipated that Musk will be more involved in decision-making than its co-founder Jack Dorsey was. Musk has more social media clout, as measured by followers, than Twitter CEO Parag Agrawal and Twitter co-founder Jack Dorsey combined. As a private company, Twitter will benefit from less transparency and less accountability than a public firm.

So here's what Musk has revealed so far as to how he intends to apply content moderation:

• In a TED Talk in Canada he stated that Twitter should let users know when a piece of content gets promoted and demoted on the site for two reasons.
  • Free speech means someone is allowed to say something on Twitter that someone else doesn't like.
  • To prevent "behind-the-scenes manipulation." Twitter's code should be on Github, Musk says, so people can look for errors and suggest changes.
• He admitted he doesn't have all the answers but he does think in terms of being reluctant to delete things and being very cautious with permanent bans, preferring instead time-outs.
• He earlier stated that a social media platform's policies are good if the most extreme 10% on the left and right are equally unhappy.

But taking down speech is only part of content moderation. Emma Llansó, director of the free expression project at the Center for Democracy and Technology, has been quoted as saying: "Leaving up harassment or hate speech could have a "chilling effect" in which users, especially minorities and women, don't feel comfortable speaking on Twitter". Further, spammers and bad actors could also use that information to try to abuse the system so their tweets get promoted higher on the timeline. However, Musk has said that he wants to enhance Twitter with new features, making algorithms open source to increase trust, defeating spambots, and authenticating all humans.

However, there's a thin line between a comment someone just doesn't like and a comment that maligns a person's integrity or reputation. Such statements can go beyond free speech into bullying, harassment, and defamation of character. With the litigious nature of American society, suits are bound to happen, and people will naturally turn to their insurance policies. But is there coverage?

First, let's look at some key terms and what they mean in the context of Twitter:

Libel is a written statement or representation that conveys an unjustly unfavorable impression; or the publication of blasphemous, treasonable, seditious, or obscene writings or pictures; defaming a person by written or representational means; or the act, tort, or crime of publishing a libel.

Defamation is the act of communicating false statements about a person that injure the reputation of that person.

Discrimination is a prejudiced or prejudicial outlook, action or treatment; or the act, practice, or an instance of discriminating categorically rather than individually.

Hate speech becomes a human rights violation if it incites discrimination, hostility or violence towards a person or a group defined by their race, religion, ethnicity or other factors. Speech that simply offends others but poses no risk is not considered a human rights violation. Therefore, hate speech is not in and of itself a criminal act.

For individuals, the standard homeowner, tenant or condominium owners policies do not provide any sort of liability coverage for libelous statements made by an insured. However, coverage can be added by the Personal Injury Coverage endorsement HO 24 82, which provides coverage for personal injury. Personal injury is a defined term and along with providing coverage for false arrest or detention, malicious prosecution and invasion of privacy, it also covers oral or written publication in any manner that slanders or libels a person or organization or disparages a person's or organization's goods, products or services.

At first glance, it looks like that would cover any comment an insured made on social media. However, there are exclusions. Personal injury caused by, or at the direction of an insured, with knowledge of its falsity is excluded. So there will be no coverage if an insured posts on Twitter or another social media site that the mayor was involved in a scam to steal the election, but the insured has actual knowledge that the mayor can't operate the software involved in stealing an election. If the comments harm the mayor's reputation and cause him to lose the next election, and the mayor sues the insured, the company will neither defend nor provide any coverage if the insured made those statements knowing they were false.

Intentionally damaging someone's reputation or invading their privacy will not be covered. Likewise, any such injury that results from the business of an insured, whether the insured owns the business or is just an employee, is also not covered. An in-depth analysis of the form can be found here.

But what about a business? For example, if there are two very competitive landscaping businesses and one accuses the other of overcharging customers and deliberately poisoning plants so as to be able to charge for replacements, is there any coverage?

The standard CGL contains similar exclusions to libelous publication of any manner as in the homeowners form. In this case, if the accusing insured knows that the statements he is making against his competitor are false, there will be no coverage. Also, the exclusion for expected or intended injury will preclude coverage if the insured by his statements intends to injure the reputation of the competitor business.

There is no corresponding personal injury endorsement for the CGL. The only endorsement is a Limited Contractual Liability Coverage for Personal and Advertising Injury endorsement CG 22 74 that provides limited coverage for a scheduled contract or agreement. The liability covered however is only for false arrest, detention or imprisonment, and does not cover oral or written statements.

So there is some coverage for personal injury, but it is not carte blanche. An insured cannot get into a heated exchange with another poster and start making libelous or defamatory statements that he knows are false and have any sort of coverage from his homeowners policy, or CGL policy if he is acting as a business owner. Free speech is one thing, but it does not allow one to malign others, however much an individual might disagree or dislike someone, or think they deserve some sort of cosmic punishment.

Related articles: 

Is Hidden Camera in Neighbor's Bathroom Covered by Homeowners Policy?

Disparagement of Property not Covered under Commercial General Liability Policy

Personal and Advertising Injury Allegations

Personal and Advertising Injury Arising due to Loss of Confidentiality