It was heralded as a “free speech” platform that would vanquish the so-called “woke mind virus.” Users flocked to it, buoyed by Elon Musk’s promise that “you are the media now” would usher in greater access to accurate information – an appeal closely tied to the steady erosion of trust in mainstream news outlets. The momentum following Musk’s takeover was such that X rapidly became the world’s top news app.
Yet the rhetoric of free speech has yielded a far darker reality. X has become notorious for the use of its AI tool, Grok, to generate sexualised images of women without their consent, as well as sexualised images involving children. What was framed as an absolutist defence of free expression has, in practice, morphed into a permissive environment for sexual harassment and online abuse.
The latest research from Trinity College Dublin, which sampled 500 posts, found that “nearly three-quarters of posts collected and analysed […] were request for nonconsensual images of real women or minors with items of clothing removed or added.”
The research further shows that users are actively “coaching one another on prompts; suggesting iterations on Grok’s presentations of women in lingerie or swimsuits, or with areas of their body covered in semen; and asking Grok to remove outer clothing in replies to posts containing self-portraits by female users.”
X’s response to the ensuing backlash only compounded the problem. Grok announced that “the image generation and editing features were now available only to paying subscribers.” In other words, under Musk’s logic, the ability to create sexualised images of women – and even children – is not curtailed on ethical grounds, but merely placed behind a paywall. Musk’s (deeply disturbing) version of free speech, it seems, is sacrosanct only when it is profitable. The supposed defence of principle collapses into a stark hypocrisy: abuse is not prohibited, only monetised.
Worse still, as is so often the case with the world’s wealthiest individual, glaring loopholes remain. Users can simply log into the standalone Grok app – separate from X – generate non-consensual images there, and then post them on their X accounts. The difference between this and the experience of premium subscribers is merely a few extra clicks. The harm remains the same; only the convenience is tiered.
Finally, to try and calm the tensions down Musk himself has promised that “anyone using Grok to make illegal content will suffer the same consequences as if they upload illegal content.” Few assurances are as hollow as this one. There is plainly no realistic mechanism by which Musk – or anyone else – can ensure that such individuals are identified, let alone prosecuted. But that, ultimately, is Musk’s X: a platform where anyone can say whatever they like, post whatever they choose, and make whatever promises they please, safe in the knowledge that there will be no meaningful consequences.
As of January 2026, Ofcom has launched an investigation into X and Grok and “if found to have broken the law, Ofcom can potentially issue X with a fine of up to 10% of its worldwide revenue or £18 million, whichever is greater. […] If X does not comply, Ofcom can seek a court order to force internet service providers to block access to the site in the UK altogether.” And of course, Musk was quick to once again reframe the debate as if this is again some free speech restriction stating that the UK government looked for “any excuse for censorship.” Maybe Ofcom will punish X, but for someone as wealthy as Elon Musk, £18 million is a drop in the ocean, if that. Finally, the UK has announced that it plans to “bring into force a law that criminalizes the creation of non-consensual sexualised images, including through Grok.” While such a move could bring about a change in the UK, that is still nowhere near enough to actually tackle the problem and protect the victims.
Drawing the line between legitimate free expression and content that warrants restriction is undeniably complex, and liberal societies have long struggled with where that boundary should be drawn. But sexualised, non-consensual images of women and children do not inhabit any grey area. This is not a debate about controversial opinions, political dissent, or the right to offend; it is about abuse, exploitation, and real-world harm. To recast this as a free speech issue is not merely misleading – it is dangerous.
Musk cannot be permitted to cloak the enabling and monetisation of abuse in the language of free expression. Free speech is not a shield for sexual violence, nor a licence to evade responsibility or regulation. If platforms like X claim to uphold democratic values, they must acknowledge that some lines are not difficult to draw at all – they are already unambiguously clear.
Musk may boast of having defeated the “woke mind virus” but what he has unleashed instead is a far more disturbing contagion: a perv mind virus, in which sexual abuse is normalised, monetised, and cynically rebranded as free speech.
Following massive public outcry, Musk has banned Grok from generating images where real people’s clothing is removed. While applauding the move, Ofcom maintains that it will continue investigating whether X has violated any laws in the U.K. Certainly, Musk’s latest decision is a step in the right direction, but we are yet to see whether further loopholes will rema
