6 ms·
It hinged on whether "pedo guy" was an actual attempt to brand someone as a pedophile, or whether it was an insult, which, at least in the US, is protected free
by gbronner 7y ago
It hinged on whether "pedo guy" was an actual attempt to brand someone as a pedophile, or whether it was an insult, which, at least in the US, is protected free speech.
Looks like the jury decided the latter.
- davesque 7y agoOdd considering that Musk hired a personal investigator (apparently a fraudster) in a misguided attempt to prove that Unsworth was, in fact, a pedophile. Kinda defeats that argument, doesn't it?
- gbronner 7y agoNot really -- defamation is extremely hard to win the US, and has to be both demonstrably false and reckless. The fact that he hired a pro investigator (or at least one who professionally held himself out as one) kind of makes 'reckless' hard to prove.
- davesque 7y agoMy comment wasn't about that. I was saying that, if the case did in fact hinge on what Musk meant by calling Unsworth "pedo guy", then it should have been a slam dunk in Unworth's favor. So then, by the contrapositive and crap, we should assume in a logical universe that the case didn't hinge on the meaning of the term "pedo guy."
- cookie_monsta 7y agoDidn't he hire the investigator after making the claim? That would make it him trying to cover his ass after making an unfounded assertion, which fits pretty well into the reckless category. What the investigator found (nothing in this case) is immaterial. The law should protect people from being defamed on a hunch that may or may not later turn out to be true.
- egdod 7y agoNot really. If he turned out to be an actual pedo, that would’ve been a pretty good argument to bring up in court. So it was worth looking into.
- davesque 7y agoSo then I can call someone a "pedo", hire a personal investigator to prove that fact specifically, and then turn around and claim I didn't literally mean they were a pedophile?
- geoelectric 7y agoIf you anticipate that their argument is that you were actually calling them one, then yes, it's the sensible thing to do to prepare yourself. There are only a few defenses to that as an element: "No I didn't," "So what, nobody would actually believe an obvious insult," (that's the one that won) and "It's true." The latter automatically wins the suit if proven, so it makes sense to probe for it among the others. If I recall from reading a memo/recap of the session yesterday, that exact argument came up. I'm still shocked he won, mind you. My understanding was that he googled the Thai area in question and read its reputation before making the statement, which sure makes it look like he meant it at face value.
- threatofrain 7y agoDefamation considers both your frame of mind and the objectivity of your statements. It's not surprising that the law protects factual statements.
- egdod 7y agoThat’s literally exactly what happened here. So... maybe?
- outside1234 7y ago"defense in depth"
- officemonkey 7y agoInsults are protected free speech? Elon Musk is a dickhole.
- skuthus 7y agoI'm not sure how this contributes to the conversation.
- egdod 7y agoYes. Why wouldn’t they be?
- threatofrain 7y agoWhat are you doing exactly? Enjoying the protection of being able to insult people? Or are you advocating that you should also be sued?
- ptaipale 7y agoEnjoying the protection of being able to insult people who deserve to be insulted? Unsworth's "provoking" certainly did not deserve the drunken, reckless response that Musk gave, nor later attempts to find dirt on Unsworth.
- officemonkey 7y agoI'm insulting Elon Musk for being a rude jerk. And according to his own argument, I'm getting away with it. I mean, no one could possibly equate Elon Musk with something that noxious waste spews from, could they?
- cookie_monsta 7y agoI would lean towards the "insult" interpretation if not for Musk's later comments ("bet you a signed dollar it's true" and "stop defending child rapists"). I think this is a very poor result. $190M was obviously excessive, but $0 isn't right either.
- sjy 7y agoThanks for clarifying this; it would have been nice if it was stated in the article! Of course the $190m figure is ludicrous, but it’s not like the jury was forced to choose $190m or zero. They must have been told to apply U.S. federal defamation law, and the article doesn’t explain what that means. If the question the jury answered was derived from the First Amendment, the outcome could well be different in countries that have defamation laws but not the First Amendment. The demanded sum of $190m is irrelevant to the jury’s decision that there was nothing to award damages for.