7 ms·
X Corp vs. Center for Countering Digital Hate, Order Granting Motion to Dismiss [pdf]
- s1gnp0st 3y ago[flagged]
- wnevets 3y ago> “X Corp. has brought this case in order to punish CCDH for CCDH publications that criticized X Corp. — and perhaps in order to dissuade others who might wish to engage in such criticism.” "I'm a free speech absolutist"
- davidw 3y agoX Corp will have to pay CCDH's legal fees because it was deemed that the suit was indeed brought to quash free speech.
- seattle_spring 3y ago[flagged]
- itg 3y agoYup, I loathe him to the point I won't even consider a Tesla at this point and actively discourage other's from getting one.
- dzhiurgis 3y agoThing is, there’s so much reality distorting about him that it became self reinforcing tailspin. People spread libel > more people hate him > more people spread libel. As far as I see, he’s same emotionally damaged man he was since he was a kid. Sometimes he counters sadness with focus, sometimes it leaks out.
- pcwalton 3y agoA court has now determined that nobody was spreading libel in this circumstance.
- dzhiurgis 3y agoWasn't commenting about court, but it looks like court didn't even begin considering it.
- clipsy 3y agoThe court doesn't dismiss lawsuits without considering their merit.
- dzhiurgis 3y agoYes, they are perfectly fair and correct.
- seattle_spring 3y ago[flagged]
- seattle_spring 3y agoEverything I know about him comes from his own mouth / Twitter account. What are you referring to that would count as libel versus what he actually said? Because I've seen him first hand say or agree with many, many truly awful things.
- dzhiurgis 3y agoInteresting
- s1gnp0st 3y ago[flagged]
- cvalka 3y ago[flagged]
- bee_rider 3y agoHe seemed to have pretty good PR folks, like, 10 years ago or something like that. I wonder if he fired them, or just got strong enough rich-guy brain damage that they can’t rein him in any more.
- jlawson 3y agoElon has always been clear that he supports free speech within the law as the U.S. courts and constitution have defined it. This means not allowing things like direct calls to immediate violence, child pornography, fraud, blackmail, and libel. Him wanting restrictions on the above things does not make him a hypocrite, it makes him reasonable. Take his words seriously, not literally. Let's move past the "gotchas" please.
- jameskilton 3y agoExcept the legal filing we're discussion here is a direct contradiction of everything you just said. > Other times, a complaint is so unabashedly and vociferously about one thing that there can be no mistaking that purpose. This case represents the latter circumstance. This case is about punishing the Defendants for their speech.
- drcongo 3y agoDid you read the OP?
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- wnevets 3y agoHow is any that related to this judge's verdict? Your definition of absolutist must be very different than mine.
- pcwalton 3y agoA U.S. court has now weighed in on that question and has decided that Elon attempted to stifle free speech as the U.S. courts and Constitution has defined it.
- dragonwriter 3y ago> Elon has always been clear that he supports free speech within the law as the U.S. courts and constitution have defined it. Yes, he tends to claim that. In this case, however, he was found by a court to be abusing the legal system for the specific purpose of using the government to suppress speech that is legal in the United States, and sanctioned for that abuse.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- ortusdux 3y ago"Sometimes it is unclear what is driving a litigation, and only by reading between the lines of a complaint can one attempt to surmise a plaintiff’s true purpose. Other times, a complaint is so unabashedly and vociferously about one thing that there can be no mistaking that purpose. This case represents the latter circumstance. This case is about punishing the Defendants for their speech." Breyer does not mince words!
- 082349872349872 3y agoIn the US truth is adequate defence against libel. In the US courts allow argument in the alternative, but frown upon those who wish to both possess and ingest their cakes. pp16-17: > It is apparent to the Court that X Corp. wishes to have it both ways — to be spared the burdens of pleading a defamation claim, while bemoaning the harm to its reputation, and seeking punishing damages based on reputational harm.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- rsynnott 3y ago[flagged]
- labrador 3y ago[flagged]
- darthnebula 3y ago[flagged]
- croes 3y agoWhy is this flagged?