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

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-...