3 ms·

I mean, I'm fairly certain that if I started publicly bad-mouthing my company and they noticed, I'd be canned.

by grigjd3 8y ago

mlindner 8y ago
Canned by the company yes, not canned by the government.
- detaro 8y ago
  GP clearly asked about a company.
- grigjd3 8y ago
  Government isn't canning Musk. They're fining him for releasing material misinformation about his company. This has been well established in the law.
  - eduah 8y ago
    Not misinformation, guidance was 350 - 500. This is a technicality of not getting approval for a tweet that could be interpreted as saying they are definitely hitting 500k 8 months from now. This is stupid. https://twitter.com/_jameshatfield_/status/1100177298723094528 https://twitter.com/_jameshatfield_/status/11001772987230945...
    - gamblor956 8y ago
      In the time between Elon's two tweets, enough trades could have occurred based on the misrepresentation that investors were financially harmed. The point of the SEC is to prevent harms like that. The point of the SEC's 2018 settlement with Elon was to prevent him from investor-harming tweets like the one he made by requiring tweets about Tesla to be reviewed for accuracy and correctness before posting.
      - Dylan16807 8y ago
        > In the time between Elon's two tweets, enough trades could have occurred based on the misrepresentation that investors were financially harmed. Does it matter that it was outside of trading hours?
        morpheuskafka 8y ago
        After hours trading is a thing, money can still be made or lost outside of trading hours.
    - kelnos 8y ago
      If he didn't want to be bound by the requirement to have all his tweets go through a legal review, then he shouldn't have agreed to a settlement with the SEC that required him to do so. It's really that simple. Doesn't matter if it's stupid or not; he signed a legally-binding court document agreeing he'd do it.
      - elliekelly 8y ago
        > If he didn't want to be bound by the requirement to have all his tweets go through a legal review, then he shouldn't have agreed to a settlement with the SEC that required him to do so. A lot of people don't realize this is industry-standard. Any reasonable CEO wants to make sure they aren't inadvertently committing securities fraud with the send of a tweet. Tweets being reviewed by the legal department are par for the course at any publicly-traded company.
- c3534l 8y ago
  The parent comment says "Can a corporation demand an employee ..." so that's exactly what we're talking about. The company, not the government.

I mean, I'm fairly certain that if I started publicly bad-mouthing my company and they noticed, I'd be canned.

mlindner 8y ago

Canned by the company yes, not canned by the government.

detaro 8y ago
GP clearly asked about a company.
grigjd3 8y ago
Government isn't canning Musk. They're fining him for releasing material misinformation about his company. This has been well established in the law.
- eduah 8y ago
  Not misinformation, guidance was 350 - 500. This is a technicality of not getting approval for a tweet that could be interpreted as saying they are definitely hitting 500k 8 months from now. This is stupid. https://twitter.com/_jameshatfield_/status/1100177298723094528 https://twitter.com/_jameshatfield_/status/11001772987230945...
  - gamblor956 8y ago
    In the time between Elon's two tweets, enough trades could have occurred based on the misrepresentation that investors were financially harmed. The point of the SEC is to prevent harms like that. The point of the SEC's 2018 settlement with Elon was to prevent him from investor-harming tweets like the one he made by requiring tweets about Tesla to be reviewed for accuracy and correctness before posting.
    - Dylan16807 8y ago
      > In the time between Elon's two tweets, enough trades could have occurred based on the misrepresentation that investors were financially harmed. Does it matter that it was outside of trading hours?
      - morpheuskafka 8y ago
        After hours trading is a thing, money can still be made or lost outside of trading hours.
  - kelnos 8y ago
    If he didn't want to be bound by the requirement to have all his tweets go through a legal review, then he shouldn't have agreed to a settlement with the SEC that required him to do so. It's really that simple. Doesn't matter if it's stupid or not; he signed a legally-binding court document agreeing he'd do it.
    - elliekelly 8y ago
      > If he didn't want to be bound by the requirement to have all his tweets go through a legal review, then he shouldn't have agreed to a settlement with the SEC that required him to do so. A lot of people don't realize this is industry-standard. Any reasonable CEO wants to make sure they aren't inadvertently committing securities fraud with the send of a tweet. Tweets being reviewed by the legal department are par for the course at any publicly-traded company.
c3534l 8y ago
The parent comment says "Can a corporation demand an employee ..." so that's exactly what we're talking about. The company, not the government.