4 ms·

Defamation is really hard to prove in court In the days of old. Over Twitter, it can be a lot easier. It's not only public, it's a written record. I'm curious

Defamation is really hard to prove in court In the days of old. Over Twitter, it can be a lot easier. It's not only public, it's a written record. I'm curious what specific damages the person is claiming against his livelihood as a result of a tweet... Certain subject areas are considered per se defamation in many jurisdictions. You don't have to prove the damages. The damage is assumed. Pedophilia is one such subject area. Basically, Musk acts like someone who doesn't know much about the law.

toomuchtodo 8y ago
He acts like he’s above the law, which you are in a way when you’re a billionaire. Money is power. You don’t even have to be a billionaire (see: POTUS and pre presidency crimes). The system is of course tilted towards those with means, it’s ridiculously silly to propose otherwise. Musk is going to get off with slap on the wrist (relatively), with damages due of single digit millions at most. De minimis.
- kylecordes 8y ago
  I think he would have more power and impact, regardless of any spare billions, if he would choose words carefully. Increase the signal-to-noise ratio of his twitter feed. Billionaire means you can get away with various things. Billionaire plus diligent attention doing a great job in public communications, that’s a winner.
  - toomuchtodo 8y ago
    I think he’s somewhere on the spectrum to be honest, and wrestles with his public image, preventing him from cultivating the image you think would be helpful. Combined with Herculean amounts of stress and using Ambien, alcohol, and maybe even a dash of cocaine, his persona developed into YOLO. It’s lonely at the top, married to your aspirations.
dmix 8y ago
You could argue Musk wasn't really making a specific attack against the person related to any specific action/activity he did in his life (for example volunteer rescue work helping children) (AFAIK). It could easily be perceived as just a general insult Musk made in response to an attack. Rather than Musk's intention was actually proposing he is a pedophile because of his involvement in x... Which would be far easier for the 'victim' to disprove as a false statement and connected to specific work and specific losses (ie, his volunteer work which he draws emotional happiness) the person might then loose out on said work in the future because he was falsely labeled a pedophile. The latter situation is usually how it'd have to work. Something concrete and specific. Otherwise it's perfectly legally to insult people on the Internet and hurt their feelings.
- stcredzero 8y ago
  You could argue Musk wasn't really making a specific attack against the person related to any specific action/activity he did in his life (for example volunteer rescue work helping children) (AFAIK). It could easily be perceived as just a general insult Musk made in response to an attack. In Texas, the standard is, "How would the statement be perceived by an average, reasonable person?" Could the statement be reasonably interpreted as a straight-up accusation of pedophilia? I don't think Musk is safe in any jurisdiction. Which would be far easier for the 'victim' to disprove as a false statement Not how it works. The plaintiff doesn't have to prove anything. The burden of proof is on the defendant (the one who said the thing) and being able to show the statement is true is an automatic defense. The latter situation is usually how it'd have to work. Something concrete and specific. For the particular insult/statement, it doesn't work that way. It's defamation per se. It's assumed to be damaging. Otherwise it's perfectly legally to insult people on the Internet and hurt their feelings. Defamation is one of the things you can't do.
- perl4ever 8y ago
  "Otherwise it's perfectly legally to insult people on the Internet and hurt their feelings." It wasn't so much publicized, but it was not just a random insult. He was making a specific accusation, and claimed to have specific reasons for believing it was true. Most news sources didn't provide everything he said, and that's probably a mercy, but at some point more context was in an article I happened to run across. So either it is true, or it was defamation, based on either malice or paranoia. Saying he didn't mean it literally just means you're ignorant of what he said.

toomuchtodo 8y ago

He acts like he’s above the law, which you are in a way when you’re a billionaire. Money is power. You don’t even have to be a billionaire (see: POTUS and pre presidency crimes). The system is of course tilted towards those with means, it’s ridiculously silly to propose otherwise. Musk is going to get off with slap on the wrist (relatively), with damages due of single digit millions at most. De minimis.

kylecordes 8y ago
I think he would have more power and impact, regardless of any spare billions, if he would choose words carefully. Increase the signal-to-noise ratio of his twitter feed. Billionaire means you can get away with various things. Billionaire plus diligent attention doing a great job in public communications, that’s a winner.
- toomuchtodo 8y ago
  I think he’s somewhere on the spectrum to be honest, and wrestles with his public image, preventing him from cultivating the image you think would be helpful. Combined with Herculean amounts of stress and using Ambien, alcohol, and maybe even a dash of cocaine, his persona developed into YOLO. It’s lonely at the top, married to your aspirations.

dmix 8y ago

You could argue Musk wasn't really making a specific attack against the person related to any specific action/activity he did in his life (for example volunteer rescue work helping children) (AFAIK). It could easily be perceived as just a general insult Musk made in response to an attack. Rather than Musk's intention was actually proposing he is a pedophile because of his involvement in x... Which would be far easier for the 'victim' to disprove as a false statement and connected to specific work and specific losses (ie, his volunteer work which he draws emotional happiness) the person might then loose out on said work in the future because he was falsely labeled a pedophile. The latter situation is usually how it'd have to work. Something concrete and specific. Otherwise it's perfectly legally to insult people on the Internet and hurt their feelings.

stcredzero 8y ago
You could argue Musk wasn't really making a specific attack against the person related to any specific action/activity he did in his life (for example volunteer rescue work helping children) (AFAIK). It could easily be perceived as just a general insult Musk made in response to an attack. In Texas, the standard is, "How would the statement be perceived by an average, reasonable person?" Could the statement be reasonably interpreted as a straight-up accusation of pedophilia? I don't think Musk is safe in any jurisdiction. Which would be far easier for the 'victim' to disprove as a false statement Not how it works. The plaintiff doesn't have to prove anything. The burden of proof is on the defendant (the one who said the thing) and being able to show the statement is true is an automatic defense. The latter situation is usually how it'd have to work. Something concrete and specific. For the particular insult/statement, it doesn't work that way. It's defamation per se. It's assumed to be damaging. Otherwise it's perfectly legally to insult people on the Internet and hurt their feelings. Defamation is one of the things you can't do.
perl4ever 8y ago
"Otherwise it's perfectly legally to insult people on the Internet and hurt their feelings." It wasn't so much publicized, but it was not just a random insult. He was making a specific accusation, and claimed to have specific reasons for believing it was true. Most news sources didn't provide everything he said, and that's probably a mercy, but at some point more context was in an article I happened to run across. So either it is true, or it was defamation, based on either malice or paranoia. Saying he didn't mean it literally just means you're ignorant of what he said.