4 ms·

> “I assume he literally didn’t mean to sodomize me with a submarine. I literally didn’t mean he was a pedophile,” Musk told jurors. Seems to be the crux of th

> “I assume he literally didn’t mean to sodomize me with a submarine. I literally didn’t mean he was a pedophile,” Musk told jurors. Seems to be the crux of the defense that was employed.

dragontamer 7y ago
The other crux, which I'd say affects my thought process, is that Unsworth seemed unable to prove damages. If no damage was done (or could be proven), then Musk is innocent. The precedent this sets is bad IMO. I wish there was some degree of damages awarded here. But I can see the argument playing out like that legally. Like the saying goes: no harm, no foul. If Unsworth literally wasn't damaged by this event, then Musk has to be innocent.
- egdod 7y ago
  They could have awarded nominal damages, $1 or whatever.
  - dragontamer 7y ago
    The litigator asked for $5 Million in nominal damages. If the litigator asked for $1 in nominal damages, maybe the Jury could have considered that as an option. But the litigator played the game this way. EDIT: I'm not a lawyer, but I see why the litigator went with the "go big or go home" strategy, asking for $190 Million in total damages. But the strategy seems to have backfired. EDIT: /s/defense/litigator
    - egdod 7y ago
      The jury isn’t limited to awards that the parties suggest.
      - dragontamer 7y ago
        Of course not. But the litigator has to plant an agreeable idea into their brain. That's literally the litigator's job, and they clearly failed at it. Its not the jury's job to come up with legal maneuvers. The jury are just normal people, like me or you, who may not know all the ins and outs of the law. The litigator makes a case, the litigator makes the arguments, and finally: the litigator bring up some options for what the jury can do. That's the job of the lawyer in this situation: to bring up the best options for representing your case. The litigator went all in with a $190 Million accusation, ignoring the possibility of smaller fees or awards. Its a bold strategy, but it failed. EDIT: /s/defense/litigator. I got my legal terms mixed up...
        sjy 7y ago
        The jury should know all the ins and outs of the law that is relevant to the issue they are deciding. https://www.americanbar.org/groups/public_education/resources/law_related_education_network/how_courts_work/juryinstruct/ https://www.americanbar.org/groups/public_education/resource...
- TillE 7y ago
  It's defamation per se (he repeatedly accused Unsworth of being a pedophile), proving damages is not necessary. I...do not understand what the jury was thinking.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  - dragontamer 7y ago
    > I...do not understand what the jury was thinking. Allegedly, none of the jury members were on Twitter (although they may have used other social media accounts). As such, the jury was quite possibly thinking "There's no way a Twitter post could cause $190 Million in damages". They probably view Twitter posts with disdain and don't take them seriously. In effect, they probably believe that "a Tweet, even an untrue one, is unlikely to cause lasting damages".

> “I assume he literally didn’t mean to sodomize me with a submarine. I literally didn’t mean he was a pedophile,” Musk told jurors. Seems to be the crux of the defense that was employed.

dragontamer 7y ago

The other crux, which I'd say affects my thought process, is that Unsworth seemed unable to prove damages. If no damage was done (or could be proven), then Musk is innocent. The precedent this sets is bad IMO. I wish there was some degree of damages awarded here. But I can see the argument playing out like that legally. Like the saying goes: no harm, no foul. If Unsworth literally wasn't damaged by this event, then Musk has to be innocent.

egdod 7y ago
They could have awarded nominal damages, $1 or whatever.
- dragontamer 7y ago
  The litigator asked for $5 Million in nominal damages. If the litigator asked for $1 in nominal damages, maybe the Jury could have considered that as an option. But the litigator played the game this way. EDIT: I'm not a lawyer, but I see why the litigator went with the "go big or go home" strategy, asking for $190 Million in total damages. But the strategy seems to have backfired. EDIT: /s/defense/litigator
  - egdod 7y ago
    The jury isn’t limited to awards that the parties suggest.
    - dragontamer 7y ago
      Of course not. But the litigator has to plant an agreeable idea into their brain. That's literally the litigator's job, and they clearly failed at it. Its not the jury's job to come up with legal maneuvers. The jury are just normal people, like me or you, who may not know all the ins and outs of the law. The litigator makes a case, the litigator makes the arguments, and finally: the litigator bring up some options for what the jury can do. That's the job of the lawyer in this situation: to bring up the best options for representing your case. The litigator went all in with a $190 Million accusation, ignoring the possibility of smaller fees or awards. Its a bold strategy, but it failed. EDIT: /s/defense/litigator. I got my legal terms mixed up...
      - sjy 7y ago
        The jury should know all the ins and outs of the law that is relevant to the issue they are deciding. https://www.americanbar.org/groups/public_education/resources/law_related_education_network/how_courts_work/juryinstruct/ https://www.americanbar.org/groups/public_education/resource...
TillE 7y ago
It's defamation per se (he repeatedly accused Unsworth of being a pedophile), proving damages is not necessary. I...do not understand what the jury was thinking.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- dragontamer 7y ago
  > I...do not understand what the jury was thinking. Allegedly, none of the jury members were on Twitter (although they may have used other social media accounts). As such, the jury was quite possibly thinking "There's no way a Twitter post could cause $190 Million in damages". They probably view Twitter posts with disdain and don't take them seriously. In effect, they probably believe that "a Tweet, even an untrue one, is unlikely to cause lasting damages".