4 ms·

Well, lets see if this goes to court. Tesla were as robust in their attack on Top Gear, and a court threw them out. They still, regardless of the court decisio

by alan_cx 14y ago

Well, lets see if this goes to court. Tesla were as robust in their attack on Top Gear, and a court threw them out. They still, regardless of the court decision, openly complain about Top Gear trying to drown out the court loss. So, to be honest, Tesla have form. They get criticised, loudly defend them selves, lose, but refuse to accept the loss. This could possible turn out the same. I think people getting all excited about this evidence should wait and see it a) it goes to court and b) the out come of such a case. I fully accept that their produce is likely under severe attack from their petrol (gas) competitors and frankly in their position I would be a bit foil hat about it, but equally they do seem hyper sensitive to criticism. There is a lot of instant Tesla supports here, but I would exercise caution and wait for both sides to be tested. It is also interesting to me to see how opinion is divided. Here its all very pro-Tesla, but in motoring circles, opinion is far more sceptical. I suspect somewhere in the middle is where the truth lives.

shin_lao 14y ago
The competition isn't petrol. You'll still need lots of petrol for plastic (for example). The competition is more traditional car companies that don't have an electric car yet.
stcredzero 14y ago
> Tesla were as robust in their attack on Top Gear, and a court threw them out. That's because the psychology of human beings allows for media folks like Top Gear to score their points and (incidentally) severely damage Tesla through the effect of a lie, without actually stating the lie. > equally they do seem hyper sensitive to criticism. As for that: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5204152 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5204152 Stephen Colbert has a word for this. "Truthiness."
marcamillion 14y ago
They can't go to court in the US, because America protects this type of speech as free speech - whereas in Britain and in commonwealth countries, libel laws are far-reaching and pervasive. Actually...he doesn't need to go to court...something as fact-filled as this, that will get a lot of attention, almost is better than a court-case. Because it plays out in the public, and Tesla will likely come out much better for it - because they are proving, with facts (not legal arguments), that this journalist was trying to perform a hack-job...but it backfired. I guarantee you, he is panicking right now - and the NYT editorial team (and perhaps board) is in panic mode right now. This cuts to the heart of journalistic integrity. As far as I can see...this is easily checkmate. Let's see how they respond.
- btilly 14y ago
  They can't go to court in the US, because America protects this type of speech as free speech Citation needed. http://journalism.about.com/od/ethicsprofessionalism/a/libel.htm http://journalism.about.com/od/ethicsprofessionalism/a/libel... (and many, many other references) disagree with you.
  - marcamillion 14y ago
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_defamation_law#Defamation_law_in_modern_practice http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_defamation_law#De... >Defamation law in the United States is much less plaintiff-friendly than its counterparts in European and the Commonwealth countries, due to the enforcement of the First Amendment. One very important distinction today is that European and Commonwealth jurisdictions adhere to a theory that every publication of a defamation gives rise to a separate claim, so that a defamation on the Internet could be sued on in any country in which it was read, while American law only allows one claim for the primary publication.
    - btilly 14y ago
      Ah, somehow I wound up thinking that you were saying that they can't sue the NY Times here, rather than that they can't sue Top Gun. I'd be quite surprised if they didn't have lawyers preparing a case right now against the NY Times.
      - marcamillion 14y ago
        That is what I was saying. I was saying that it is harder for them to successfully sue the NYT in America because the courts have upheld protection of the press via the First Amendment. Soo....I would be surprised if they did pursue legal action against NYT - given how easily they were shut down in Britain that has more lax libel laws. My point was that they actually don't need to. This one blog post does more good for their reputation and more damage for NYTs than a lawsuit could/would.
DanBC 14y ago
Top Gear didn't lose because they're entertainment and "obviously" not truthful. Are you suggesting the NYT is not truthy?
nicholassmith 14y ago
Top Gear wasn't dismissed because Tesla was wrong, it was dismissed as Top Gear presented their case that they were demonstrating the cars for entertainment and not as a factual review. The judge felt the distinction had merit and dismissed the case, Tesla felt differently of course.
- thisone 14y ago
  exactly. Top Gear isn't a news program, it's an entertainment program. People don't watch Top Gear to get actual car reviews, they watch to drool over the car porn and laugh at Jezza in a Robin Reliant. I will say I don't agree with what they did with the Tesla, but it's a separate issue from the NYTimes article.
- Kylekramer 14y ago
  This just isn't true. The entertainment angle was not at all why the judge threw out the case. It was because they felt Telsa's claims were vague and that people understand that cars perform differently under different circumstances: http://transmission.blogs.topgear.com/2012/02/23/tesla-libel-action-against-top-gear-fails-again/ http://transmission.blogs.topgear.com/2012/02/23/tesla-libel...
  - nicholassmith 14y ago
    Interesting, after it blew up I could swear I'd read that one of the arguments the TG legal team used was "It's all done for entertainment, the situations we place cars are in are completely unrealistic".
- makomk 14y ago
  Nope. They lost because, even if some viewers did interpret it as a serious factual review with no dramatized elements, Tesla Motors still couldn't come up with any plausible justification for why those viewers would be mislead in a way that would actually harm Tesla even slightly. (English libel law doesn't work the same way as US libel law; IIRC, if you can show that a reasonable viewer could have interpreted the broadcast in a way that's both defamatory and false, then that's libel even if the broadcaster never intended it to be understood that way and even if all or nearly all viewers interpreted it correctly.)

by alan_cx 14y ago

shin_lao 14y ago

The competition isn't petrol. You'll still need lots of petrol for plastic (for example). The competition is more traditional car companies that don't have an electric car yet.

stcredzero 14y ago

> Tesla were as robust in their attack on Top Gear, and a court threw them out. That's because the psychology of human beings allows for media folks like Top Gear to score their points and (incidentally) severely damage Tesla through the effect of a lie, without actually stating the lie. > equally they do seem hyper sensitive to criticism. As for that: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5204152 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5204152 Stephen Colbert has a word for this. "Truthiness."

marcamillion 14y ago

They can't go to court in the US, because America protects this type of speech as free speech - whereas in Britain and in commonwealth countries, libel laws are far-reaching and pervasive. Actually...he doesn't need to go to court...something as fact-filled as this, that will get a lot of attention, almost is better than a court-case. Because it plays out in the public, and Tesla will likely come out much better for it - because they are proving, with facts (not legal arguments), that this journalist was trying to perform a hack-job...but it backfired. I guarantee you, he is panicking right now - and the NYT editorial team (and perhaps board) is in panic mode right now. This cuts to the heart of journalistic integrity. As far as I can see...this is easily checkmate. Let's see how they respond.

btilly 14y ago
They can't go to court in the US, because America protects this type of speech as free speech Citation needed. http://journalism.about.com/od/ethicsprofessionalism/a/libel.htm http://journalism.about.com/od/ethicsprofessionalism/a/libel... (and many, many other references) disagree with you.
- marcamillion 14y ago
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_defamation_law#Defamation_law_in_modern_practice http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_defamation_law#De... >Defamation law in the United States is much less plaintiff-friendly than its counterparts in European and the Commonwealth countries, due to the enforcement of the First Amendment. One very important distinction today is that European and Commonwealth jurisdictions adhere to a theory that every publication of a defamation gives rise to a separate claim, so that a defamation on the Internet could be sued on in any country in which it was read, while American law only allows one claim for the primary publication.
  - btilly 14y ago
    Ah, somehow I wound up thinking that you were saying that they can't sue the NY Times here, rather than that they can't sue Top Gun. I'd be quite surprised if they didn't have lawyers preparing a case right now against the NY Times.
    - marcamillion 14y ago
      That is what I was saying. I was saying that it is harder for them to successfully sue the NYT in America because the courts have upheld protection of the press via the First Amendment. Soo....I would be surprised if they did pursue legal action against NYT - given how easily they were shut down in Britain that has more lax libel laws. My point was that they actually don't need to. This one blog post does more good for their reputation and more damage for NYTs than a lawsuit could/would.

DanBC 14y ago

Top Gear didn't lose because they're entertainment and "obviously" not truthful. Are you suggesting the NYT is not truthy?

nicholassmith 14y ago

Top Gear wasn't dismissed because Tesla was wrong, it was dismissed as Top Gear presented their case that they were demonstrating the cars for entertainment and not as a factual review. The judge felt the distinction had merit and dismissed the case, Tesla felt differently of course.

thisone 14y ago
exactly. Top Gear isn't a news program, it's an entertainment program. People don't watch Top Gear to get actual car reviews, they watch to drool over the car porn and laugh at Jezza in a Robin Reliant. I will say I don't agree with what they did with the Tesla, but it's a separate issue from the NYTimes article.
Kylekramer 14y ago
This just isn't true. The entertainment angle was not at all why the judge threw out the case. It was because they felt Telsa's claims were vague and that people understand that cars perform differently under different circumstances: http://transmission.blogs.topgear.com/2012/02/23/tesla-libel-action-against-top-gear-fails-again/ http://transmission.blogs.topgear.com/2012/02/23/tesla-libel...
- nicholassmith 14y ago
  Interesting, after it blew up I could swear I'd read that one of the arguments the TG legal team used was "It's all done for entertainment, the situations we place cars are in are completely unrealistic".
makomk 14y ago
Nope. They lost because, even if some viewers did interpret it as a serious factual review with no dramatized elements, Tesla Motors still couldn't come up with any plausible justification for why those viewers would be mislead in a way that would actually harm Tesla even slightly. (English libel law doesn't work the same way as US libel law; IIRC, if you can show that a reasonable viewer could have interpreted the broadcast in a way that's both defamatory and false, then that's libel even if the broadcaster never intended it to be understood that way and even if all or nearly all viewers interpreted it correctly.)