3 ms·

Odd considering that Musk hired a personal investigator (apparently a fraudster) in a misguided attempt to prove that Unsworth was, in fact, a pedophile. Kinda

Odd 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 ago
Not 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 ago
  My 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 ago
  Didn'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 ago
Not 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 ago
  So 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 ago
    If 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 ago
    Defamation considers both your frame of mind and the objectivity of your statements. It's not surprising that the law protects factual statements.
  - egdod 7y ago
    That’s literally exactly what happened here. So... maybe?
outside1234 7y ago
"defense in depth"

Odd 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 ago

Not 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 ago
My 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 ago
Didn'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 ago

Not 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 ago
So 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 ago
  If 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 ago
  Defamation considers both your frame of mind and the objectivity of your statements. It's not surprising that the law protects factual statements.
- egdod 7y ago
  That’s literally exactly what happened here. So... maybe?

outside1234 7y ago

"defense in depth"