7 ms·

Elon Musk’s ‘pedo guy’ defamation case is going to trial

21 points by koolba 8y ago

SlowRobotAhead 8y ago
1. What a very strange ordeal. Someone please explain but it seems like the only way this works out for Musk is if he brings some incriminating evidence on the diver? Why wouldn’t they just settle this out of court? 2. Everything else aside, I remember seeing the narrow squeezes, and remember seeing the submarine. That was never going to work.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- cfqycwz 8y ago
  I suppose it could end up as only a slight loss for Musk if the diver can't demonstrate damages? E.g. if Musk's claim was so absurd and non-credible that nobody took it seriously?
  - jdenning 8y ago
    IANAL, but in my understanding, the diver would need to demonstrate damages in a standard defamation case, but defamation per se does not require actual damages.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
cgijoe 8y ago
I have a stupid question. Can anyone just sue anyone else for defamation? I'm just trying to figure out why Elon is in so much trouble over this. He isn't an elected official or anything. He's just a dude who happens to make cars and space ships. Is he not allowed to call people names for some reason? I once called my friend a douchebag, so can he sue me for defamation? > "Musk’s lawyers argued that statements on the internet, and more specifically on unmoderated forums like Twitter, are presumptively opinion, not objective fact." As much as I think Elon should shut up, get off Twitter and stop making a fool of himself, I have to agree with his lawyers here. I don't see a crime.
- TallGuyShort 8y ago
  I feel like this isn't quite defamation either (especially since there was later a retraction of sorts), but calling someone a pedophile is in a distinct class from calling someone a douchebag. In one case the insult is an inanimate object that is always an insult, and can't be reasonably taken seriously. In the other there's an implication of extreme wrongdoing where the line between insult and false accusation is blurry. Edit: see the comment about per se defamation in another thread, as I wasn't aware of that legal distinction but it's the same idea. I don't believe "douchebag" meets that definition, but pedo guy is border-line at best.
  - joecool1029 8y ago
    > I feel like this isn't quite defamation either He made a specific claim misrepresenting the guy. A claim in which he could request relief (for instance: employers not hiring him because he was rumored to be a pedo) He didn't say 'cave guy looks like a pedo', he literally called him a 'pedo guy' which most people would think 'oh, maybe this is a person with a history of abusing children'. In the least if it makes a someone reading that consider that the plaintiff is actually a pedo or at least has to stop to research it.... that seems fairly defamatory.
- dragonwriter 8y ago
  > Can anyone just sue anyone else for defamation? Anyone can sue anyone for anything, but actionable defamation has a fairly narrow definition in the US, largely as a result of the First Amendment, and to survive the preliminary phases of legal action there must be at least an allegation with evidence proposed to be presented that could reasonably meet the definition. > I'm just trying to figure out why Elon is in so much trouble over this. Because people aren't, legally, free to publish harmful lies about others, and Musk stands credibly accused of doing that. > He isn't an elected official or anything. How is that even relevant? (Were he a public official, and the statement was related to his execution of public duties, he'd probably be in less, not more, legal danger because of governmental immunities.) > Is he not allowed to call people names for some reason? He didn’t just call someone names. He both publicly offered a bet that the label would prove to be factually accurate and followed the general accusation with detailed and specific supporting allegations of sexual predation on children, which were presented to a reporter. > I once called my friend a douchebag, so can he sue me for defamation? Since it is impossible for a human to be a literal douchebag, it is impossible for that to be construed as a fact claim. It is quite possible for a human to be a pedophile, and Musk’s conduct can (at a minimum) reasonably be seen as indicating that he meant the accusation to be treated as literal fact, not generic name calling. > I have to agree with his lawyers here. I don't see a crime. He's not accused of a crime; were he accused of a crime, it would be by a public prosecutor, not a private litigant. But if Musk's lawyer’s “Twitter is not for fact claims but only opinion puffery that no one takes seriously” argument had any real chance of being taken seriously by a court, he'd never have settled with the SEC (and then done so again when accused of breaking the first settlement) over his problem of tweeting about Tesla. It's like Musk is dedicated to getting in trouble in every domain of law in which it is possible to get in trouble for improper fact claims, all by way of Twitter.
Ice_cream_suit 8y ago
"What Plaintiffs Must Prove To Win A Defamation Lawsuit In The USA: To win a U.S. defamation lawsuit, the plaintiff, at the very least, must prove that the defendant: Published or otherwise broadcast an unprivileged, false statement of fact about the plaintiff; Caused material harm to the plaintiff by publishing or broadcasting said false statement of fact; Acted either negligently or with actual malice; Free Speech Vs Defamation: In the United States, federal defamation law is closely tied to the First Amendment. As a result, federal slander and libel laws are more defendant-friendly in the U.S. than those in common law countries, like the U.K. and Canada. In short, opinion is not considered defamation in the U.S. That being said, false statements of fact that harm the reputation of an individual or business, aren't protected under Constitutional Free Speech provisions." http://kellywarnerlaw.com/us-defamation-laws/ http://kellywarnerlaw.com/us-defamation-laws/
- Ice_cream_suit 8y ago
  "Actual Malice Actual malice is the standard of proof public figures must satisfy to win a defamation lawsuit. Essentially, actual malice is present when a defendant knowingly pubishes or broadcasts a false statement of fact. Reckless disregard for the truth amounts to actual malice in some jurisdictions." http://kellywarnerlaw.com/us-defamation-laws/ http://kellywarnerlaw.com/us-defamation-laws/
  - wahern 8y ago
    The key thing to realize here is that the plaintiff was not a public figure, notwithstanding his role in an otherwise well-publicized incident. The plaintiff doesn't have to show that Musk acted with malice or reckless disregard. Elon is fighting this because he can, but even his lawyer would know it's a loser. OTOH, it's probably a fun case for the lawyer, like the cases assigned in law school that are designed to be losers but you make it a personal challenge to see how far you can take it. Plus he's getting paid well.
- Ice_cream_suit 8y ago
  "Defamation Per Se Some statements are naturally and obviously harmful; they are considered per se defamatory. In defamation per se claims, plaintiffs don't have to prove injury because the harm to is presumed. For example, falsely calling someone a criminal would fall under the per se umbrella." http://kellywarnerlaw.com/us-defamation-laws/ http://kellywarnerlaw.com/us-defamation-laws/
jdenning 8y ago
Unless it turns out that the diver is actually a pedophile, Elon is pretty screwed here. The difference between a standard defamation (defamation per quod) and defamation per se, is that a defamation per se is something that is so harmful that the plaintiff does not need to prove actual damages. "Traditionally, there have been four general categories of untrue statements presumed to be harmful to one's reputation and therefore actionable as an injury claim. Typically, if the statements don't fall into one of these categories, the plaintiff is required to prove their damages. If it does fall into one of these categories, damages are usually presumed. The four general categories are: Indications that a person was involved in criminal activity Indications that a person had a "loathsome," contagious or infectious disease Indications that a person was unchaste or engaged in sexual misconduct Indications that a person was involved in behavior incompatible with the proper conduct of his business, trade or profession"[1] Unless Elon's statements were actually truthful, it seems that his comments fall under two or possibly three of the above categories. (depending on how one interprets the email he sent to a buzzfeed reporter) I know that a lot of people here have a lot of respect for Elon, but come on - unless he has some undisclosed information of which everyone else is ignorant, it seems pretty clear that he did defame this guy. The fact that his lawyers' argument is essentially "you can't defame someone on Twitter" also seems fairly desperate IMO. [1]: https://injury.findlaw.com/torts-and-personal-injuries/what-is-defamation-per-se-.html https://injury.findlaw.com/torts-and-personal-injuries/what-...
- ddingus 8y ago
  Legal concept of the day. Thank you. Appreciated.
- dragonwriter 8y ago
  > Unless Elon's statements were actually truthful, it seems that his comments fall under two or possibly three of the above categories. (depending on how one interprets the email he sent to a buzzfeed reporter) Actually, I think it potentially hits all four: Pedophilic acts are generally crimes, and the totality of the circumstances makes it reasonable to conclude that Musk meant that acts, not just orientation, is involved, meeting the first form of per se defamation. Pedophilia is a diagnosable mental condition, and one which brings significant social disapprobation; mental disorders have in some cases been held as being “loathsome” diseases. To the extent that Musk's claim can be viewed as including (even if not limited to) a claim of pedophilia in the sense of the disorder, it fits the second category. Pedophilic acts are also sexual misconduct as well as crimes, so it fits the third category for much the same reason as the first. Accusing a professional cave diver currently employed as such in a rescue of children of being an active pedophile certainly seems like it is accusing them of something incompatible with their business, trade, or profession. (Huh, this case could become a new textbook example of per se defamation.)
ggm 8y ago
It is increasingly hard to retain respect for a billionaire who takes on "the little people" and then eggregiously defames them, and uses his personal wealth to try and avoid the easy path out: Saying sorry, or not being stupid in the first place. Sure. he's musk. he's also (in my personal opinion) behaving like a dickwad. Man up, say sorry and pay restitution.
wavepruner 8y ago
In lawsuits like this, are the judge's and other court employee's salaries covered by legal fees paid by the loser? Or is this footed by tax payers? What a ridiculous waste of tax payers money if this is funded by them.

21 points by koolba 8y ago

1. What a very strange ordeal. Someone please explain but it seems like the only way this works out for Musk is if he brings some incriminating evidence on the diver? Why wouldn’t they just settle this out of court? 2. Everything else aside, I remember seeing the narrow squeezes, and remember seeing the submarine. That was never going to work.

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
cfqycwz 8y ago
I suppose it could end up as only a slight loss for Musk if the diver can't demonstrate damages? E.g. if Musk's claim was so absurd and non-credible that nobody took it seriously?
- jdenning 8y ago
  IANAL, but in my understanding, the diver would need to demonstrate damages in a standard defamation case, but defamation per se does not require actual damages.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]

cgijoe 8y ago

I have a stupid question. Can anyone just sue anyone else for defamation? I'm just trying to figure out why Elon is in so much trouble over this. He isn't an elected official or anything. He's just a dude who happens to make cars and space ships. Is he not allowed to call people names for some reason? I once called my friend a douchebag, so can he sue me for defamation? > "Musk’s lawyers argued that statements on the internet, and more specifically on unmoderated forums like Twitter, are presumptively opinion, not objective fact." As much as I think Elon should shut up, get off Twitter and stop making a fool of himself, I have to agree with his lawyers here. I don't see a crime.

TallGuyShort 8y ago
I feel like this isn't quite defamation either (especially since there was later a retraction of sorts), but calling someone a pedophile is in a distinct class from calling someone a douchebag. In one case the insult is an inanimate object that is always an insult, and can't be reasonably taken seriously. In the other there's an implication of extreme wrongdoing where the line between insult and false accusation is blurry. Edit: see the comment about per se defamation in another thread, as I wasn't aware of that legal distinction but it's the same idea. I don't believe "douchebag" meets that definition, but pedo guy is border-line at best.
- joecool1029 8y ago
  > I feel like this isn't quite defamation either He made a specific claim misrepresenting the guy. A claim in which he could request relief (for instance: employers not hiring him because he was rumored to be a pedo) He didn't say 'cave guy looks like a pedo', he literally called him a 'pedo guy' which most people would think 'oh, maybe this is a person with a history of abusing children'. In the least if it makes a someone reading that consider that the plaintiff is actually a pedo or at least has to stop to research it.... that seems fairly defamatory.
dragonwriter 8y ago
> Can anyone just sue anyone else for defamation? Anyone can sue anyone for anything, but actionable defamation has a fairly narrow definition in the US, largely as a result of the First Amendment, and to survive the preliminary phases of legal action there must be at least an allegation with evidence proposed to be presented that could reasonably meet the definition. > I'm just trying to figure out why Elon is in so much trouble over this. Because people aren't, legally, free to publish harmful lies about others, and Musk stands credibly accused of doing that. > He isn't an elected official or anything. How is that even relevant? (Were he a public official, and the statement was related to his execution of public duties, he'd probably be in less, not more, legal danger because of governmental immunities.) > Is he not allowed to call people names for some reason? He didn’t just call someone names. He both publicly offered a bet that the label would prove to be factually accurate and followed the general accusation with detailed and specific supporting allegations of sexual predation on children, which were presented to a reporter. > I once called my friend a douchebag, so can he sue me for defamation? Since it is impossible for a human to be a literal douchebag, it is impossible for that to be construed as a fact claim. It is quite possible for a human to be a pedophile, and Musk’s conduct can (at a minimum) reasonably be seen as indicating that he meant the accusation to be treated as literal fact, not generic name calling. > I have to agree with his lawyers here. I don't see a crime. He's not accused of a crime; were he accused of a crime, it would be by a public prosecutor, not a private litigant. But if Musk's lawyer’s “Twitter is not for fact claims but only opinion puffery that no one takes seriously” argument had any real chance of being taken seriously by a court, he'd never have settled with the SEC (and then done so again when accused of breaking the first settlement) over his problem of tweeting about Tesla. It's like Musk is dedicated to getting in trouble in every domain of law in which it is possible to get in trouble for improper fact claims, all by way of Twitter.

Ice_cream_suit 8y ago

"What Plaintiffs Must Prove To Win A Defamation Lawsuit In The USA: To win a U.S. defamation lawsuit, the plaintiff, at the very least, must prove that the defendant: Published or otherwise broadcast an unprivileged, false statement of fact about the plaintiff; Caused material harm to the plaintiff by publishing or broadcasting said false statement of fact; Acted either negligently or with actual malice; Free Speech Vs Defamation: In the United States, federal defamation law is closely tied to the First Amendment. As a result, federal slander and libel laws are more defendant-friendly in the U.S. than those in common law countries, like the U.K. and Canada. In short, opinion is not considered defamation in the U.S. That being said, false statements of fact that harm the reputation of an individual or business, aren't protected under Constitutional Free Speech provisions." http://kellywarnerlaw.com/us-defamation-laws/ http://kellywarnerlaw.com/us-defamation-laws/

Ice_cream_suit 8y ago
"Actual Malice Actual malice is the standard of proof public figures must satisfy to win a defamation lawsuit. Essentially, actual malice is present when a defendant knowingly pubishes or broadcasts a false statement of fact. Reckless disregard for the truth amounts to actual malice in some jurisdictions." http://kellywarnerlaw.com/us-defamation-laws/ http://kellywarnerlaw.com/us-defamation-laws/
- wahern 8y ago
  The key thing to realize here is that the plaintiff was not a public figure, notwithstanding his role in an otherwise well-publicized incident. The plaintiff doesn't have to show that Musk acted with malice or reckless disregard. Elon is fighting this because he can, but even his lawyer would know it's a loser. OTOH, it's probably a fun case for the lawyer, like the cases assigned in law school that are designed to be losers but you make it a personal challenge to see how far you can take it. Plus he's getting paid well.
Ice_cream_suit 8y ago
"Defamation Per Se Some statements are naturally and obviously harmful; they are considered per se defamatory. In defamation per se claims, plaintiffs don't have to prove injury because the harm to is presumed. For example, falsely calling someone a criminal would fall under the per se umbrella." http://kellywarnerlaw.com/us-defamation-laws/ http://kellywarnerlaw.com/us-defamation-laws/

jdenning 8y ago

Unless it turns out that the diver is actually a pedophile, Elon is pretty screwed here. The difference between a standard defamation (defamation per quod) and defamation per se, is that a defamation per se is something that is so harmful that the plaintiff does not need to prove actual damages. "Traditionally, there have been four general categories of untrue statements presumed to be harmful to one's reputation and therefore actionable as an injury claim. Typically, if the statements don't fall into one of these categories, the plaintiff is required to prove their damages. If it does fall into one of these categories, damages are usually presumed. The four general categories are: Indications that a person was involved in criminal activity Indications that a person had a "loathsome," contagious or infectious disease Indications that a person was unchaste or engaged in sexual misconduct Indications that a person was involved in behavior incompatible with the proper conduct of his business, trade or profession"[1] Unless Elon's statements were actually truthful, it seems that his comments fall under two or possibly three of the above categories. (depending on how one interprets the email he sent to a buzzfeed reporter) I know that a lot of people here have a lot of respect for Elon, but come on - unless he has some undisclosed information of which everyone else is ignorant, it seems pretty clear that he did defame this guy. The fact that his lawyers' argument is essentially "you can't defame someone on Twitter" also seems fairly desperate IMO. [1]: https://injury.findlaw.com/torts-and-personal-injuries/what-is-defamation-per-se-.html https://injury.findlaw.com/torts-and-personal-injuries/what-...

ddingus 8y ago
Legal concept of the day. Thank you. Appreciated.
dragonwriter 8y ago
> Unless Elon's statements were actually truthful, it seems that his comments fall under two or possibly three of the above categories. (depending on how one interprets the email he sent to a buzzfeed reporter) Actually, I think it potentially hits all four: Pedophilic acts are generally crimes, and the totality of the circumstances makes it reasonable to conclude that Musk meant that acts, not just orientation, is involved, meeting the first form of per se defamation. Pedophilia is a diagnosable mental condition, and one which brings significant social disapprobation; mental disorders have in some cases been held as being “loathsome” diseases. To the extent that Musk's claim can be viewed as including (even if not limited to) a claim of pedophilia in the sense of the disorder, it fits the second category. Pedophilic acts are also sexual misconduct as well as crimes, so it fits the third category for much the same reason as the first. Accusing a professional cave diver currently employed as such in a rescue of children of being an active pedophile certainly seems like it is accusing them of something incompatible with their business, trade, or profession. (Huh, this case could become a new textbook example of per se defamation.)

ggm 8y ago

It is increasingly hard to retain respect for a billionaire who takes on "the little people" and then eggregiously defames them, and uses his personal wealth to try and avoid the easy path out: Saying sorry, or not being stupid in the first place. Sure. he's musk. he's also (in my personal opinion) behaving like a dickwad. Man up, say sorry and pay restitution.

wavepruner 8y ago

In lawsuits like this, are the judge's and other court employee's salaries covered by legal fees paid by the loser? Or is this footed by tax payers? What a ridiculous waste of tax payers money if this is funded by them.