Texas attorney general Ken Paxton claims to defend the First Amendment, but he’s repeatedly abused consumer protection law to go after reporting and free speech. Ken Paxton by Gage Skidmore is licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0. Billionaire bullies filing SLAPP lawsuits against reporting they don’t like is, unfortunately, nothing new. But it’s less common for state officials to add fuel to the anti-free speech fire by retaliating against the same reporting, even if it has nothing to do with them. That’s what makes the recent legal attacks on Media Matters over its investigation into the advertising practices of X, formerly known as Twitter, unusual and all the more troubling. Journalists and news outlets should take note of how state attorney generals are targeting Media Matters, and how Media Matters is fighting back — because traditional journalists and news outlets may be next. Threats to press freedom around the world are at an all-time high. Sign up to stay up to date and take action to protect journalists and whistleblowers everywhere. Thanks for signing up for our newsletter. You are not yet subscribed! Please check your email for a message asking you to confirm your subscription. You may have heard about the investigation by Media Matters showing that X is still allowing ads to be placed alongside racist and hateful content, causing even more advertisers to flee the site. In response, X’s thin-skinned billionaire owner Elon Musk somehow overcame his “free speech absolutism” to file a meritless lawsuit against Media Matters for its reporting. He’s promised to file more lawsuits against the group in other courts around the world. That kind of retaliatory civil lawsuit meant to chill reporting is bad enough. But on the same day, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton also announced an “investigation” into Media Matters, claiming, with no evidence or support, that it may have engaged in fraud under Texas consumer protection law. Days later, the Missouri attorney general launched his own investigation, based on Missouri’s consumer protection law. Speaking of free speech hypocrites, that’s the same Missouri AG who’s suing the Biden administration for alleged censorship. Media Matters is fighting back. Last week, it sued Paxton, arguing that his investigation is a thinly veiled attempt to intimidate and silence it. Media Matters says that the investigation and Paxton’s overbroad demands for information and documents — including Media Matters’ communications with sources — retaliate against it for its reporting and violate the First Amendment, not to mention the shield laws in Washington, D.C., and Maryland, where Media Matters and the author of its investigation are based. It’s clear from the timing of Paxton’s announcement and his demands for particular documents and information that he’s investigating Media Matters because of its reporting about X. What’s less clear is the many reasons why Media Matters’ investigation so outraged Paxton and sparked his Texas-sized tantrum. One obvious answer is that any controversy involving X is the perfect fodder for the content moderation culture wars. Conservatives repeatedly claim (despite evidence to the contrary) that they’re being “censored” online, and they argue that liberal big tech companies, left-leaning civil society organizations like Media Matters, and Democrats are to blame. The argument that social media and the federal government are discriminating against conservative viewpoints is the basis for the First Amendment lawsuit seeking to block the Biden administration from communicating with social media companies about content moderation policies. One of the plaintiffs in that lawsuit is Missouri, which, conveniently, is quick to rely on the First Amendment when it suits its needs. Texas Republicans have also leaned into the issue of conservative censorship on social media, as has Paxton, who criticized Media Matters as a “radical anti-free speech organization” when announcing the investigation. Only slightly less obviously, Paxton’s investigation also conveniently targets an outlet that’s repeatedly criticized him, including his stance on gender-affirming care, his attempts to undermine the 2020 election, and more. While Paxton’s investigation has most directly chilled Media Matters’ reporting about X, by threatening the organization and its sources, Paxton may be betting he can silence other reporting, too, including about himself. But perhaps most worryingly for the free press, Paxton’s investigation into Media Matters may help him create another legal tool to retaliate against more traditional news outlets and journalists, too.