5 ms·

> Derailing him to jail time or prison would be a net loss for humanity, however objectively and legally inconsistent it may be. I hate this perspective. As a

> Derailing him to jail time or prison would be a net loss for humanity, however objectively and legally inconsistent it may be. I hate this perspective. As a member of humanity, I want everyone to face equal justice, no matter how pivotal to a particular project or movement they may be. There will always be more visionaries. Anything else will eventually and inevitably lead to violence.

InTheArena 8y ago
He did just pay for his mistakes, so everyone (except Elon) is a winner here. Elon needs someone to act as a brake from time to time. Like shotwell at SpaceX..
- archagon 8y ago
  I was responding more to the sentiment than this to particular case. Glad Musk was held accountable.
yourbandsucks 8y ago
Would you have sacrificed the Apollo program for that sentiment? Genuine question. I'm conflicted myself.
- Invictus0 8y ago
  Absolutely. Even if it Apollo failed and it took 50 more years for humanity to reach the moon, these are small numbers on the scale of human history. Jailing Musk wouldn't mean humanity is forever unable to have electric cars or go to Mars. As another HN user quoted recently, the graveyards are filled with indispensable men.
  - yourbandsucks 8y ago
    It's particularly relevant to Apollo considering Werner von Braun. In hindsight, it looks less urgent because we didn't do a lot with the intervening years.. but it could have been different. Not sure why people downvoted my question, it's an interesting line of inquiry. Maybe they don't know their history.
    - fooker 8y ago
      People downvoted your question because they don't like counterexamples conflicting with their ideals.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
perl4ever 8y ago
I'm not particularly a fan of Musk, but the purported objective of SEC enforcement is to protect investors. If (as I read a day or two ago) the stock plunged on news of enforcement, then it's reasonable to question whether punishing him makes sense. Are the stockholders really better off with less (or no) Musk? Maybe, but does the SEC know better than the market? In any case, I'm not sure how or if "equal justice" is relevant.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- rayiner 8y ago
  Like most laws their purpose is normative. The point is to stop the next dozen CEOs from doing something like this.
  - perl4ever 8y ago
    I'm not sure deterrence is applicable. Someone commented in an earlier thread that Musk is slightly bipolar/manic at times. Fining him is not going to deter him from having symptoms, nor will letting him go encourage another person to have such symptoms. Your theory seems like spanking your child for catching the flu. Of course, it might be that his tweets are being considered in the larger context of recent irresponsible tweeting by those in power, and thus from the perspective of enforcement it looks like a rising tide.
- ryan_j_naughton 8y ago
  The SEC isn't there to simply "protect investors". Your implication is the investors worth protecting are those with long positions. What about the shorts? The SEC are there to protect the integrity of the market. Things like fraudulent information, insider trading, etc are corrosive to the mechanisms which a well functioning market requires.
  - perl4ever 8y ago
    "Your implication is the investors worth protecting are those with long positions" Maybe there should be a bias towards those who benefit from the continuing viability of the company and maybe not. But in this case, I suggest it's moot just because the damage to longs appeared to be significantly greater than the damage to shorts and it doesn't counterbalance anyway. The penalties seem arbitrary to me. Transferring several million (or billion) dollars around as they are doing doesn't seem to rectify in any way the purported injustice to shorts. The whole episode drove down the stock quite a bit, so longs have suffered a lot, shorts have suffered somewhat, and the government collected a commission. Nobody has had wrongs rectified, and it's unknown whether prying Musk away from Tesla is a net gain. Personally, I was neither long nor short TSLA at the time of the tweet, and I don't think short sellers are inherently illegitimate. However, I think the existence of a public company generally serves a social purpose and long investors are not quite symmetric with short investors. If, in general, there is a dispute where you can apply long investors' concept of fairness, or you can apply short investors' concept of fairness, it kind of makes sense that what damages the company less is probably the right answer, barring something like Theranos that shouldn't exist at all.
thaumaturgy 8y ago
I'm somewhat ashamed for feeling compelled to disagree. I know the right thing is to agree completely with you. Justice should be blind, and I've complained about that in other cases. At the same time, it seems these days that there are so few people really working for the advancement of humanity to the extent that Musk is. (And just to try to abort the inevitable replies: yeah, I get that he isn't a saint, and yeah, he's done some pretty stupid, ugly, awful things.) You're right that there will always be more visionaries, but the ones that are capable of executing grand visions that improve humanity seem to only roll around once a generation or so. They absolutely shouldn't be given a pass for terrible behavior, but I hate to see society so eager to tear at them, too.
gkoberger 8y ago
Sure, I'd agree with this argument if he sexually assaulted someone or got a DUI or something. Nobody is "too valuable to go to jail". But jail time for a random tweet seems like overkill, and removing him from Tesla for this does feel like it would be a net negative. He was heavily fined, which seems more fair.
- sosborn 8y ago
  > jail time for a random tweet Yeah, it isn't like he was out there randomly accusing people of being pedophiles or anything.
- moomin 8y ago
  I’m not going to argue sentencing, but I feel it’s necessary to point out that Musk doesn’t get to make random tweets, especially about price-sensitive investor information. The SEC treats his account as a corporate mouthpiece and anything he says on it can be treated as an official statement. This isn’t his first rodeo: he should know this stuff off by heart. As it is, you have to wonder what other fiduciary duties he’s not up to speed on.
  - FartyMcFarter 8y ago
    > The SEC treats his account as a corporate mouthpiece Because Tesla told everyone to treat his account as a corporate mouthpiece: https://www.cnbc.com/2018/08/08/reuters-america-update-7-u-s-sec-examining-musks-tweets-on-taking-tesla-private-wsj.html https://www.cnbc.com/2018/08/08/reuters-america-update-7-u-s... "Tesla alerted investors in a 2013 SEC filing that they should follow Musk's Twitter feed for "additional information" about the company."
bitanarch 8y ago
It doesn't make sense to prosecute every violation with maximum penalties allowable under the law. It's just not how the legal system works. e.g. Google was alleged to have illegally issued options to their employees back in 2004 by the SEC. If they prosecuted Google's board and officers with maximum penalty in a federal court (and the court allowed such nonsense), then both Larry and Sergey (and a bunch of executives) would end up with 5-year prison sentences before Google had a chance to go IPO. But such a course of action is obviously not in public interest - the amount of damage to investors and the public in general caused by the remedy would far outweigh whatever irregularities in option grants that Google committed. And btw, the same securities laws also apply when you open a startup and raise funds or issue options. It's not "Oh but Google is rich and I'm poor these laws won't hit me". Quite a number of securities law violations don't require intent. A single filing error by your lawyers can mean you're already in violation (and, years in prison if you use the maximum penalty) - even if you're just a tiny startup with $100k. Both prosecutors and courts have always been walking a fine line on what's considered fair for each particular circumstance. It's how it has always been.
- hn_throwaway_99 8y ago
  But that is not what the parent comment to yours was arguing. He wasn't asking for the maximum available penalty, he was just saying that, in essence, justice should be blind, and criminal penalties should not be lessened based on the wealth or power of the convicted. Using your own example, he was basically saying that if someone with "a tiny startup with $100k" was guilty of the same crime, he should face the same penalties as Musk.
- anticensor 8y ago
  > It doesn't make sense to prosecute every violation with maximum penalties allowable under the law. It's just not how the legal system works. Tell that to muslims.
TomMckenny 8y ago
Then the punishment for misleading consumers and employees should be comparable to the punishment for misleading investors.
phil21 8y ago
> Anything else will eventually and inevitably lead to violence. I agree, but why has punishment and enforcement become so utterly derailed from reality or just.... basic morality? They went after Musk hard because it was a trivial slam-dunk no-effort case. For a tweet. Then you look at truly evil people who have committed acts of outright fraud who walk due to simply playing the game the government wants you to. So while I agree with your point, I have very large reservations with current enforcement institutions. Go after a high-performing unconventional guy like Musk who actually accomplishes things with the entire weight of the federal government - but let the parasitic bankers who caused actual damage with outright fraud in the real world completely skate because prosecution would have actually taken work and been career risky. My limited experience with the enforcement arms of the federal government simply affirmed this point of view. They only care about themselves and their personal careers, and could care less about actually protecting the people or even remotely attempting to find justice. But if you tweet something that harms some wealthy short sellers there will be hell to pay within weeks. Yes, this is hyperbolic and could be articulated better - but it's been something I've been chewing on now for decades.

InTheArena 8y ago

He did just pay for his mistakes, so everyone (except Elon) is a winner here. Elon needs someone to act as a brake from time to time. Like shotwell at SpaceX..

archagon 8y ago
I was responding more to the sentiment than this to particular case. Glad Musk was held accountable.

yourbandsucks 8y ago

Would you have sacrificed the Apollo program for that sentiment? Genuine question. I'm conflicted myself.

Invictus0 8y ago
Absolutely. Even if it Apollo failed and it took 50 more years for humanity to reach the moon, these are small numbers on the scale of human history. Jailing Musk wouldn't mean humanity is forever unable to have electric cars or go to Mars. As another HN user quoted recently, the graveyards are filled with indispensable men.
- yourbandsucks 8y ago
  It's particularly relevant to Apollo considering Werner von Braun. In hindsight, it looks less urgent because we didn't do a lot with the intervening years.. but it could have been different. Not sure why people downvoted my question, it's an interesting line of inquiry. Maybe they don't know their history.
  - fooker 8y ago
    People downvoted your question because they don't like counterexamples conflicting with their ideals.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]

perl4ever 8y ago

I'm not particularly a fan of Musk, but the purported objective of SEC enforcement is to protect investors. If (as I read a day or two ago) the stock plunged on news of enforcement, then it's reasonable to question whether punishing him makes sense. Are the stockholders really better off with less (or no) Musk? Maybe, but does the SEC know better than the market? In any case, I'm not sure how or if "equal justice" is relevant.

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
rayiner 8y ago
Like most laws their purpose is normative. The point is to stop the next dozen CEOs from doing something like this.
- perl4ever 8y ago
  I'm not sure deterrence is applicable. Someone commented in an earlier thread that Musk is slightly bipolar/manic at times. Fining him is not going to deter him from having symptoms, nor will letting him go encourage another person to have such symptoms. Your theory seems like spanking your child for catching the flu. Of course, it might be that his tweets are being considered in the larger context of recent irresponsible tweeting by those in power, and thus from the perspective of enforcement it looks like a rising tide.
ryan_j_naughton 8y ago
The SEC isn't there to simply "protect investors". Your implication is the investors worth protecting are those with long positions. What about the shorts? The SEC are there to protect the integrity of the market. Things like fraudulent information, insider trading, etc are corrosive to the mechanisms which a well functioning market requires.
- perl4ever 8y ago
  "Your implication is the investors worth protecting are those with long positions" Maybe there should be a bias towards those who benefit from the continuing viability of the company and maybe not. But in this case, I suggest it's moot just because the damage to longs appeared to be significantly greater than the damage to shorts and it doesn't counterbalance anyway. The penalties seem arbitrary to me. Transferring several million (or billion) dollars around as they are doing doesn't seem to rectify in any way the purported injustice to shorts. The whole episode drove down the stock quite a bit, so longs have suffered a lot, shorts have suffered somewhat, and the government collected a commission. Nobody has had wrongs rectified, and it's unknown whether prying Musk away from Tesla is a net gain. Personally, I was neither long nor short TSLA at the time of the tweet, and I don't think short sellers are inherently illegitimate. However, I think the existence of a public company generally serves a social purpose and long investors are not quite symmetric with short investors. If, in general, there is a dispute where you can apply long investors' concept of fairness, or you can apply short investors' concept of fairness, it kind of makes sense that what damages the company less is probably the right answer, barring something like Theranos that shouldn't exist at all.

thaumaturgy 8y ago

I'm somewhat ashamed for feeling compelled to disagree. I know the right thing is to agree completely with you. Justice should be blind, and I've complained about that in other cases. At the same time, it seems these days that there are so few people really working for the advancement of humanity to the extent that Musk is. (And just to try to abort the inevitable replies: yeah, I get that he isn't a saint, and yeah, he's done some pretty stupid, ugly, awful things.) You're right that there will always be more visionaries, but the ones that are capable of executing grand visions that improve humanity seem to only roll around once a generation or so. They absolutely shouldn't be given a pass for terrible behavior, but I hate to see society so eager to tear at them, too.

gkoberger 8y ago

Sure, I'd agree with this argument if he sexually assaulted someone or got a DUI or something. Nobody is "too valuable to go to jail". But jail time for a random tweet seems like overkill, and removing him from Tesla for this does feel like it would be a net negative. He was heavily fined, which seems more fair.

sosborn 8y ago
> jail time for a random tweet Yeah, it isn't like he was out there randomly accusing people of being pedophiles or anything.
moomin 8y ago
I’m not going to argue sentencing, but I feel it’s necessary to point out that Musk doesn’t get to make random tweets, especially about price-sensitive investor information. The SEC treats his account as a corporate mouthpiece and anything he says on it can be treated as an official statement. This isn’t his first rodeo: he should know this stuff off by heart. As it is, you have to wonder what other fiduciary duties he’s not up to speed on.
- FartyMcFarter 8y ago
  > The SEC treats his account as a corporate mouthpiece Because Tesla told everyone to treat his account as a corporate mouthpiece: https://www.cnbc.com/2018/08/08/reuters-america-update-7-u-s-sec-examining-musks-tweets-on-taking-tesla-private-wsj.html https://www.cnbc.com/2018/08/08/reuters-america-update-7-u-s... "Tesla alerted investors in a 2013 SEC filing that they should follow Musk's Twitter feed for "additional information" about the company."

bitanarch 8y ago

It doesn't make sense to prosecute every violation with maximum penalties allowable under the law. It's just not how the legal system works. e.g. Google was alleged to have illegally issued options to their employees back in 2004 by the SEC. If they prosecuted Google's board and officers with maximum penalty in a federal court (and the court allowed such nonsense), then both Larry and Sergey (and a bunch of executives) would end up with 5-year prison sentences before Google had a chance to go IPO. But such a course of action is obviously not in public interest - the amount of damage to investors and the public in general caused by the remedy would far outweigh whatever irregularities in option grants that Google committed. And btw, the same securities laws also apply when you open a startup and raise funds or issue options. It's not "Oh but Google is rich and I'm poor these laws won't hit me". Quite a number of securities law violations don't require intent. A single filing error by your lawyers can mean you're already in violation (and, years in prison if you use the maximum penalty) - even if you're just a tiny startup with $100k. Both prosecutors and courts have always been walking a fine line on what's considered fair for each particular circumstance. It's how it has always been.

hn_throwaway_99 8y ago
But that is not what the parent comment to yours was arguing. He wasn't asking for the maximum available penalty, he was just saying that, in essence, justice should be blind, and criminal penalties should not be lessened based on the wealth or power of the convicted. Using your own example, he was basically saying that if someone with "a tiny startup with $100k" was guilty of the same crime, he should face the same penalties as Musk.
anticensor 8y ago
> It doesn't make sense to prosecute every violation with maximum penalties allowable under the law. It's just not how the legal system works. Tell that to muslims.

TomMckenny 8y ago

Then the punishment for misleading consumers and employees should be comparable to the punishment for misleading investors.

phil21 8y ago

> Anything else will eventually and inevitably lead to violence. I agree, but why has punishment and enforcement become so utterly derailed from reality or just.... basic morality? They went after Musk hard because it was a trivial slam-dunk no-effort case. For a tweet. Then you look at truly evil people who have committed acts of outright fraud who walk due to simply playing the game the government wants you to. So while I agree with your point, I have very large reservations with current enforcement institutions. Go after a high-performing unconventional guy like Musk who actually accomplishes things with the entire weight of the federal government - but let the parasitic bankers who caused actual damage with outright fraud in the real world completely skate because prosecution would have actually taken work and been career risky. My limited experience with the enforcement arms of the federal government simply affirmed this point of view. They only care about themselves and their personal careers, and could care less about actually protecting the people or even remotely attempting to find justice. But if you tweet something that harms some wealthy short sellers there will be hell to pay within weeks. Yes, this is hyperbolic and could be articulated better - but it's been something I've been chewing on now for decades.