2 ms·

[deleted because I was misinformed, as pointed out by a below comment]

dfxm12 8y ago
Spicer's statements as press secretary represent neither a legal precedent nor necessarily the opinion of the Justice Department, though. I know you didn't specify "legal precedent", but that's the only precedent that would've mattered here. This is why this case had to be sorted out in the courts. On the topic of Musk, the SEC has protocols that need to be followed. Even if Musk blocked 0 people, I'm sure he'd be under investigation.
chollida1 8y ago
> A potentially crucial difference is that Donald Trump's White House Press Secretary said in a press conference in June 2017 that Trump's twitter statements should be construed as official statements by the president's office. I'm not aware of a similar precedent involving Musk. Well Tesla has gone on record with an 8-k form that indicates that Elon's personal twitter account is able to speak for Tesla officially. https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1318605/000119312513427630/d622890d8k.htm https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1318605/000119312513... Sorry, I should have put this in my original comment so you didn't have to make your comment:(
- oarsinsync 8y ago
  Can anyone who has downvoted this comment explain why? The link to the 8-K provided very clearly states: > For additional information, please follow Elon Musk’s and Tesla’s Twitter accounts: twitter.com/elonmusk and twitter.com/TeslaMotors Which is in line with what the GP is stating. Various other financial reporting outfits have reported on this same document referencing the same line, and indicated that it may be considered justification as an official channel of distribution. Whether or not it actually is concluded that way remains to be seen, but I'm not sure what's wrong with @chollida1's comment
mortenjorck 8y ago
If you identify yourself as an executive of a publicly-traded company and make statements that would fall under SEC regulation, I’m pretty sure they don’t care whether or not you identify those comments as “official.”

Spicer's statements as press secretary represent neither a legal precedent nor necessarily the opinion of the Justice Department, though. I know you didn't specify "legal precedent", but that's the only precedent that would've mattered here. This is why this case had to be sorted out in the courts. On the topic of Musk, the SEC has protocols that need to be followed. Even if Musk blocked 0 people, I'm sure he'd be under investigation.

chollida1 8y ago

> A potentially crucial difference is that Donald Trump's White House Press Secretary said in a press conference in June 2017 that Trump's twitter statements should be construed as official statements by the president's office. I'm not aware of a similar precedent involving Musk. Well Tesla has gone on record with an 8-k form that indicates that Elon's personal twitter account is able to speak for Tesla officially. https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1318605/000119312513427630/d622890d8k.htm https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1318605/000119312513... Sorry, I should have put this in my original comment so you didn't have to make your comment:(

oarsinsync 8y ago
Can anyone who has downvoted this comment explain why? The link to the 8-K provided very clearly states: > For additional information, please follow Elon Musk’s and Tesla’s Twitter accounts: twitter.com/elonmusk and twitter.com/TeslaMotors Which is in line with what the GP is stating. Various other financial reporting outfits have reported on this same document referencing the same line, and indicated that it may be considered justification as an official channel of distribution. Whether or not it actually is concluded that way remains to be seen, but I'm not sure what's wrong with @chollida1's comment

mortenjorck 8y ago

If you identify yourself as an executive of a publicly-traded company and make statements that would fall under SEC regulation, I’m pretty sure they don’t care whether or not you identify those comments as “official.”