If you did that you would be banned, deservedly. But you wouldn't owe him millions of dollars.
So are you are saying Musk deserves to be banned from twitter? Because that's something else entirely and I would agree.
-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
Elon Musk wins Twitter defamation trial brought by caver Vernon Unsworth
- Thread starter Deleted member 43084
- Start date
If you did that you would be banned, deservedly. But you wouldn't owe him millions of dollars.
So are you are saying Musk deserves to be banned from twitter? Because that's something else entirely and I would agree.
I'm not defaming lunchbox, according to his own argument. As such I shouldn't be banned since I'm not doing anything wrong in their eyes
Forum moderation isn't based on US laws. It's a private server with private rules.
Musk was in the wrong there.
Being in the wrong doesn't mean you owe someone 200 million dollars.
Yes but to his point, I'd need free range here to accuse lunchbox of being a pedophile to fully prove it's not defamation. If I'm banned I clearly can't reproduce a fraction of the action Musk has taken
Edit: Let's be clear I don't think lunchbox is a pedophile
I'm not following your point at all here. Not illegal != not shitty. Here you can be banned for shitty. Outside in the big blue room you are not legally liable.
That was my interpretation as well. The diver needed to prove his actual reputation was harmed and that it's affecting him financially.
Considering I dont even know the dudes name, he's got a hard case to prove.
If someone is fine with the lack of consequences out there they should be fine with the lack of consequences here.
This is incredibly idiotic.
Was really bummed Rick and Morty had him voice a version of himself.
Was really bummed Rick and Morty had him voice a version of himself.
Huh? Why? I'm fine with people not being thrown in jail or sued for a great number of things that I'm also perfectly fine with leading to a ban here. Your argument is pretty nonsensical.
If you brought Elon Musk here he'd likely be banned? The owner of this forum can actually ban you for anything, the TOS here is purely subjective and mods can technically do whatever the fuck they want.
The expectations of a private forum ran by a private citizen are not the same as a court of law which has the ability to compel you to pay money or remove you from society.
Being banned from Resetera does neither. Calling someone a pedo on here will get you banned but that doesn't mean you need to PayPal them $100. Twitter could ban Musk like Twitter could ban anyone if it actually upheld its TOS.
Like Era though Twitter can be as subjective as it wants, and it is. The way it treats celebs is never the same as how it might treat regular citizens. Just like Twitch and YouTube will give their big users 25 lives to keep doing or saying shitty things that might get other users booted on life 1.
Why are you conflating morality and law? Morality is not a valid basis for legality. It's a perfectly acceptable basis for internet forum rules.
Honestly the fact that he's managed to keep his mouth in check in recent months is shocking but I feel like that might change now that he's won this.
Was the diver seriously taking Elon Musk to court for 200 million dollars? I see that number being chucked around but it's hard to believe, that's a ridiculous amount. The diver is greedy and wanted to profit from someone else's work.
I was on the side of the diver initially but if he was indeed trying to get 200 million dollars then no, I side with Elon Musk and he was he victim here of someone's attempt to try and legally steal some money. What he did was dumb but insulting someone doesn't warrant giving that much money.
I was on the side of the diver initially but if he was indeed trying to get 200 million dollars then no, I side with Elon Musk and he was he victim here of someone's attempt to try and legally steal some money. What he did was dumb but insulting someone doesn't warrant giving that much money.
I was under the impression he just said it once in a tweet, I apologize.
It was from the verge, they had a journalist covering the case, said how one person was actually excused because they were actually a billionaire
If the Vic Mignogna thread has taught me anything about defamation cases, it's that the accuser needs actually show the receipts for defamation. Financial losses due to the defamation, lifestyle alterations due to defamation, among other things. While several of the checkboxes were definitely ticked, for someone to be found guilty all of the checkboxes need to be. At least from what I understand. I'm not a lawyer.
I think this is one of those cases of don't hate the player, hate the game. Of course hiring a good lawyer to make certain points more convincing is way easier when you're rich compared to when you don't have access to money.
I think hating on the jurors or making up conspiracy theories of bribery is kind of a bad look.
I think this is one of those cases of don't hate the player, hate the game. Of course hiring a good lawyer to make certain points more convincing is way easier when you're rich compared to when you don't have access to money.
I think hating on the jurors or making up conspiracy theories of bribery is kind of a bad look.
Hope you're not saying that it was Elon's work that made him his money
Here's an article I found. The statements are regarding potential jurors that needed to be dismissed for the following reasons
In addition to some potential jurors having followed him on Twitter.
Seems like there was a really bad case of broken telephone going on here.
Last edited:
Uncalled for shit name calling and stupid as shit punitive damages. Dumb all round by the both of them.
It was one child and she was guilty as hell. I saw some interviews with jurors afterwards and they were fucking idiots.
Idiots on a jury is nothing new; lawyers bank on it. That said, it sounds like a defamation case is hard to prove.
Yeah, no. Musk is a egotistical piece of dog shit who tried to use that situation - where kids were trapped in an underwater cave - to showboat. Like so many rich people (and Silicon Valley jackwads) he thought he was automatically brilliant in everything and offered an entirely unhelpful submarine nobody asked for even as professional rescue divers were actually doing something of merit, including one brave soul who died. When Unsworth called Musk out on his bullshit, the little man made big by his money had a twitter meltdown and called him a pedophile.
And FYI, the amount of Unsworth sought had nothing to do with the verdict. Lawyers always highball and juries usually come in much lower if they agree damages should be paid.
Stupid on both sides, they both went after each other. Calling someone a pedo is total horseshit but asking for 200Mil is living in outer space dreamland.
IMO some compensation should be in order though.
You side with an egomaniac who tried to use a potential tragedy to boost his own profile while the real heroes were helping keep those kids alive?
One of those divers died helping those kids while Elon was making useless toys and calling one of the real heroes a pedo.
Two possibilities:
1) Slander effectively no longer exists in the USA. It is okay to calm someone whatever you want without fear of legal reprisal. That is the precedent this case sets.
2) The means of a billionaire.
1) Slander effectively no longer exists in the USA. It is okay to calm someone whatever you want without fear of legal reprisal. That is the precedent this case sets.
2) The means of a billionaire.
There's no equivalency here. Unworth called Musk out for shoving his idiot nose into a situation he literally knew nothing about because he thought "Hey, I'm Elon Musk and I know everything."
Unsworth was entirely right to do so and frankly, I don't have a problem with the amount he sued for because Musk didn't just punch down, he tried to drop a social media bomb on the guy for daring to question the unfettered and intractable genius of Elon Musk.
Musk is nothing more than a bully and I don't give a rat's hairy sack how hard a bully gets punched back.
There's actually three:
3) Defamation is legally defined just as it always was and is still extremely hard to successfully sue for in court
has anyone been successfully sued for a twitter comment before?
I'm surprised people are hurling around conspiracy theories of jurors being paid off, or some kind of billionaire bias, when the opposite is true.
the only reason he got sued for the pedo tweet is because he is rich and famous.
I'm surprised people are hurling around conspiracy theories of jurors being paid off, or some kind of billionaire bias, when the opposite is true.
the only reason he got sued for the pedo tweet is because he is rich and famous.
Last edited:
According to this, it has been this way for a very long time. This case means nothing.
I own a Tesla and I don't like or worship Elon. I don't care about who owns the company whose product I eat/drive/own. That is an impossible task and will drive you insane. Just look at any Chick-fil-a thread on this forum.
The other post about four people owning Teslas is normal since this case was in CA and Teslas are everywhere in CA. Dismissing those potential jurors does make sense since they may be biased. And a guy applying at SpaceX, man our judicial system needs to screen people better. Why waste that guy's time and the lawyers when they know he will be dismissed.
That was the screening. Jurors are chosen randomly and then are screened to see if they are fit for the case or not by the judge.