The real takeaway here is that the current definition/legal standard for defamation doesn't actually line up with today's social media driven world.
-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
Elon Musk wins Twitter defamation trial brought by caver Vernon Unsworth
- Thread starter Deleted member 43084
- Start date
The court has seemingly interpreted it in the same way as if someone on Resetera was to say to another Resetera user "You like anime? You are a paedophile".
As an insult or statement of mockery which hasn't been influenced by you knowing or not knowing if the person actually is a paedophile.
Defamation cases are hard to win at the best of times, this was always on shaky grounds, especially as the power dynamics aren't really considered. The courts are usually more interested if it's businesses or products getting defamed, or say a journalistic entry such as the BBC writes an article wrongly accusing/stating someone is something/their product is what it isn't (and you can claim financial damage).
Last edited:
The difference is that ResetEra members aren't globally known personalities posting to an audience of literal millions who will actively believe every word they say.
This ruling is a disgrace.
receipts?
Lawyers pick jurors and there's no way in hell the plaintiff's lawyer would have allowed that. It WOULD have come up during selection.
I know, I already made that point twice. That's the power dynamics of being a known celebrity. Elon Musk is not going to be able to sue Joe Bloggs from Florida for calling him a pedo online because of how known Elon Musk is/how you can Google him. But if Elon Musk calls Joe Bloggs the pedo, it's not as easy to Google a random person and its going to carry more weight that followers of the famous person may take them literally.
Then again you'd probably get famous people arguing does that mean they aren't able to insult people they are angry at? Not that I'm asking you to feel sorry for this hypothetical, but it's relevant to the courts/laws when it comes to Person A being able to say something without legal recourse but Person B not being able to.
Well my firm and I all agreed the diver was never going to win because there was no actual damages to his reputation or business and 150 million or whatever is crazy. Punitive damages are super hard to get as well. But Just look at the internet, people think musk continues to be the worst and the others were like well musk was just talking shit leave him alone. The divers reputation in all this was never really called out and prob improved
That and the guy wanted a staggering 200 million dollars for it.
I also saw him running someone over in some weird ass cardboard looking piece of shit of a car.
IDK to me a creeper and a pedo are two very different things.
You don't have to pay the jury. The world is filled with idiots. You just have to pay a good enough lawyer to stack the jury with them.
On one hand: "Billionaires get away with stuff regular people don't"
On the other: "Billionaires should be penalized $200 million for insults and name-calling"
On the other: "Billionaires should be penalized $200 million for insults and name-calling"
And the plaintiff's lawyer helped out? Because both lawyers get to say yes or no to each prospective juror.
If this is true than the diver deserved to lose and he should sue his lawyer.
Yes but each side could be looking for something different out of a prospective juror. It's not like they get together and hash it out.
It was a criminal trial, so not sure how different things are, but the OJ Simpson trial is a perfect case of this. The (well paid) defense ran circles around the prosecution when it came to jury selection, and stacked the jury with people they thought would be sympathetic to their case.
If this is true, and you just read it, you need to provide a source because this just sounds like a conspiracy and there is a whole other layer of problems if information about jurors was revealed.
Eh, I wouldn't expect this case to have a great chance of success no matter who was defending. Defamation laws are very tough to overcome.
would he have had a better chance of winning in a British court where libel laws are much stronger? what decides where a case like this is done?
they do, though. Both lawyers (along with the judge) are present at juror interview and selection, and they can coordinate and compromise on selection, and either one can decline a juror. It's why they start from a large pool.
The rulings are actually different because he is a personality. The 'Actual Malice' part of defemation is reserved for public officials/celebrities. Regular Joe Blogs only has to prove 3 things. The statement was unture, that it caused harm(this might be a bit where the caze against Elon could have tripped up if it could be argued no one believed Elon/he has a notorious eccentric twitter where he rants randomly and the diver still recieved universal praise for his actions, thus did not harm his reputation), and was done without adequate research into truthfullnes (if Elon could prove a third party shared this info as fact could go in his favour).
Celebrities and public figures have an 'Actual Malice' step to prove aswell. Seems like it was more designed for celeb on press or vice versa cases. For the 'Actual Malice' step you have to prove that the offender did so with intent to harm the other, with reckless disregard for the truth. I assume this amounts to trying to directly damage someones reputation in some way, rather than just offend or speculate, alongside having good knowledge what you are saying is untrue or likely to be untrue. Off the cuff childish namecalling can be differentiated from an actual character attack meant to destroy your reputation.
So yea, this is actually an example where, at least in the US, the law is actually different for the famous and it makes it harder to prove a case against them.
Maybe a little inaccurate. Results from a quick google and wikinread about what Actual Malice amounted to.
Last edited:
I get that, what Im saying is that they can be looking at different things out of a jury based on how they are going to present their case. Both sides aren't necessarily getting together to choose a juror that is going to serve everyone down the middle. They are trying to eek out every advantage they can.
When you exclusively pick pedos for a jury, it's no wonder they don't find this to be a problem.
Conspiracies that the whole jury were paid off because a case didn't end as you want aren't exactly the best way to go. Unless you're going to do that every single time a court case ends in a way you personally can't believe.
In this case issues surrounding defamation laws and questions of power balances when it comes to what could possibly be deemed an insult are more at play. The amount being asked for probably didn't help either, irrespective of the wealth of Elon Musk.
Y'know, there's something which puzzled me for a while. If the option exists, can you guys over in the US ask/opt for an inquisitorial court? IIRC that's the old common law name for a court composed of a panel of judges, rather than a jury.
Srsly. Anyone expecting this to go any other way must actually think billionaires won't just throw money at problems until they go away.
ok first, it doesn't matter if its to ERA, the grocery store, or twitter, the law is the same (unless the person being allegedly defamed is a public persona, where you have to show actual malice - which is why people can say awful things about celebrities politicians etc...without fear of being sued).
The Plaintiff also told Elon to stick his sub up his ass (essentially) before Elon called him "pedo guy" - the jury would have also have to believe that a person reading the tweet was more than just an insult.
It was a terribly stupid thing to do by Elon but seemed clear to jury in the end that there was no defamation. Also, I don't see any evidence that this was some crazy case where the rich defendant spent so much money to bury the Plaintiff. It was a pretty straightforward case and short jury trial. The guy probably should have taken the offer (which I'm sure was significant) instead of going for the home run. I feel for the Plaintiff's attorney as well - tough to lose to public case
There is something ironic about baselessly accusing a jury of the crime of taking a bribe because they ruled in the other direction in a defamation lawsuit.
now that the trial is over maybe musk can stop lusting after children long enough to make sure tesla interiors dont look like they were designed by hasbro
Musk literally had millions of followers. Him publically accusing someone of being a pedophile can literally ruin their lives. This isn't something he did once, he doubled down on it when he should know better.