Elon Musk 'to be sued in Thailand, London and US’ by cave diver he called 'paedo' in baseless remark

[transam]

37 minutes ago, kcpattaya said:

I thought Thais were GREEDY...

Elaborate...?

[monkfish]

Musk could Sue Unsworth for defamation in Thailand considering it was Unsworth who started the spat of iinsults with his interview on CNN.

[side]

17 hours ago, colinneil said:

Nonsense, my own daughter called me that when i told her i was marrying a lady 20 years younger than me.

Did i care, no i didnt it is just words, words cannot hurt you unless you are a 21st century snowflake who gets offended just by a few words.

But....the case (and this thread allegedly) has nothing to do with taking offense or just words.

 

It's about defamation of character. 

 

Your daughter calling you a paedo within your own 4 walls or on the phone is not defamation of character in the legal sense.

[side]

3 minutes ago, monkfish said:

Musk could Sue Unsworth for defamation in Thailand considering it was Unsworth who started the spat of iinsults with his interview on CNN.

Only if Musk can demonstrate that the comments amounted to defamation of character. My recollection is that Unsworth said Musk could stick the thing where the sun don't shine. That's not defamation.

 

Seeing as Musk has not implied as such in any of his subsequent tweets, then it's unlikely. Or did I miss something whereby Musk has alleged defamation re those comments?

[colinneil]

1 minute ago, side said:

Only if Musk can demonstrate that the comments amounted to defamation of character. My recollection is that Unsworth said Musk could stick the thing where the sun don't shine. That's not defamation.

 

Seeing as Musk has not implied as such in any of his subsequent tweets, then it's unlikely. Or did I miss something whereby Musk has alleged defamation re those comments?

You are wrong Musk could sue Unsworth here, for defamation.

[side]

Just now, colinneil said:

You are wrong Musk could sue Unsworth here, for defamation.

Based on which quote of Unsworth's?

[lanista]

18 hours ago, darksidedog said:

I hope Vernon has plenty of money, because lawyers dont work for free, and suing in three countries will be VERY expensive.

I know he kicked things off, but Musk has gone too far and deserves to get nailed. Calling someone a pedo without evidence is just wrong.

 What?   It wont be costing him a penny. Litigators will be climbing all over him to sue a billionaire for defamation.

Their aim will be to settle out of court for an' undisclosed sum' which the law firm pockets about 40%.

 

You get the feeling Musk knows something we dont. Why is he doing this?

He has a plan.

[Zack61]

The lawyers are gonna make a killing. Toughen up Vern after all you started the slanging match. 

[colinneil]

Just now, side said:

Based on which quote of Unsworth's?

You clearly have no idea regarding the defamation laws in Thailand./

You post something bad about a company/person here and you can be sued, if you think i am wrong check it out.

[Sheryl]

I can sort of agree with you, but in this day and age, there are few labels worse that you can tag someone with. And, of course, your daughter's words were not reported in newspapers around the world...
 
That said, I think the English guy set the whole thing in motion - dumb and dumber, the pair of them. 

More than reported in newspapers. Tweeted to 22 million followers.

Sent from my SM-J701F using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

[Bluespunk]

1 hour ago, BestB said:

Stupid people do not make billions . Comments taking Tesla private was meant to increase share prices , which it did., which in turn makes him few hundred million richer

If that was his reasoning and purpose, then it was a very stupid thing to do. 

 

Its illegal to behave in this manner if you are a listed company in the USA. 

 

https://amp.theguardian.com/technology/2018/aug/09/tesla-elon-musk-funding-secured-tweet

 

[Horace]

1 minute ago, side said:

7 minutes ago, monkfish said:

Musk could Sue Unsworth for defamation in Thailand considering it was Unsworth who started the spat of iinsults with his interview on CNN.

Only if Musk can demonstrate that the comments amounted to defamation of character. My recollection is that Unsworth said Musk could stick the thing where the sun don't shine. That's not defamation.

 

Seeing as Musk has not implied as such in any of his subsequent tweets, then it's unlikely. Or did I miss something whereby Musk has alleged defamation re those comments?

 

There is a major difference between (a) Vernon's comment about Musk's submarine plan and (b) ruining someone's life by calling them a paedo, rapist, etc.  The former is not defamatory, the latter certainly is.

 

I have not seen any evidence to back up Musk's claims.  Looking at this purely on the basis of the equities (fairness), the burden is on Musk to provide some evidence to back up this claim.  Because he hasn't done so and because he acts like a child, I don't believe him. 

 

Vernon is faced with the very unfair prospect of having to sue an unscrupulous and unstable billionaire.

 

 

 

[sanemax]

3 minutes ago, lanista said:

 You get the feeling Musk knows something we dont. Why is he doing this?

He has a plan.

I have a feeling that Musk is just pretending to know something .Thinking /hoping that Vern has some skeletons in his closed and Musk is pretending to know about them .

  Calling his bluff , pretending that he has four aces, when he doesnt even have a pair

[Horace]

5 minutes ago, colinneil said:

You clearly have no idea regarding the defamation laws in Thailand./

You post something bad about a company/person here and you can be sued, if you think i am wrong check it out.

 

You can go to prison here.  And private parties can commence criminal actions.  Musk has presumably consulted with lawyers in Thailand and know this.

[side]

3 minutes ago, colinneil said:

You clearly have no idea regarding the defamation laws in Thailand./

You post something bad about a company/person here and you can be sued, if you think i am wrong check it out.

Sure I do.

 

Hence my point: which part of Unsworth's widely available interview on video constitutes defamation? He says the Musk's Submarine Pod wouldn't have made it through the cave, it couldn't have gone round corners etc. That's a technical opinion. 

[Bluespunk]

57 minutes ago, kcpattaya said:

I thought Thais were GREEDY...

Some are, some aren’t. 

 

However, this isn’t about greed. If someone called me what musk called unsworth, I wouldn’t just ignore it. 

 

Some things are beyond the pale. 

[side]

3 minutes ago, Horace said:

 

You can go to prison here.  And private parties can commence criminal actions.  Musk has presumably consulted with lawyers in Thailand and know this.

So where is his counter lawsuit here in Thailand to sue Unsworth for defamation?

[Artisi]

7 minutes ago, sanemax said:

I have a feeling that Musk is just pretending to know something .Thinking /hoping that Vern has some skeletons in his closed and Musk is pretending to know about them .

  Calling his bluff , pretending that he has four aces, when he doesnt even have a pair

(Musk) doesn't have a pair is probably spot-on.

Edited September 7, 2018 by Artisi

[NomadRip]

1 minute ago, side said:

Sure I do.

 

Hence my point: which part of Unsworth's widely available interview on video constitutes defamation? He says the Musk's Submarine Pod wouldn't have made it through the cave, it couldn't have gone round corners etc. That's a technical opinion. 

 

The parts that damaged the reputation of the company by claiming it was a PR stunt. The bar is pretty low here on defamation. Technically Musk could file a suit on anyone speaking ill of him here in public. Unlike Vern's Thai case, it could actually hold up for those who acted while in Thailand.

[toofarnorth]

15 hours ago, nemo38 said:

Elon Musk recently made a lot of enemies when he threatened to set up a web site where people could rate journalists. Journos flipped out over this on twitter. Subsequently he started to get more negative press on Tesla. I don't know if that is related. Anyway, the long and the short of it is that Vern could get a lot of media support to stick it to Musk.

 

Vern was a dick for responding dismissively to Musk. Musk obviously has a thin skin for reacting so insanely and for taking it this far.

 

If Vern has any skeletons in the closet Elon Musk's lawyers will sniff them out. If he ever did aerobics with a 17yo Thai girl Musk's billions will bring them into court.

 

All this drama shows the value of not making yourself a target for short tempered and grumpy people. Best to duck out of trouble at the earliest opportunity.

Your third paragraph.   I think I said when this first appeared , how much of a problem would it be for somebody in the Musk camp to find out where Vern lives pay a couple of kids a 1000B to give Vern a kiss on the cheek while another kid takes a pic. Of course it would take a while to find Vern as he lives in the Chiang Rai province but a long way from the city.

[BestB]

7 minutes ago, Bluespunk said:

If that was his reasoning and purpose, then it was a very stupid thing to do. 

 

Its illegal to behave in this manner if you are a listed company in the USA. 

 

https://amp.theguardian.com/technology/2018/aug/09/tesla-elon-musk-funding-secured-tweet

 

It was indeed , but just border line and that’s why no action was taken, that’s not to say action may still to come. 

[moutamine]

19 hours ago, darksidedog said:

I hope Vernon has plenty of money, because lawyers dont work for free, and suing in three countries will be VERY expensive.

I know he kicked things off, but Musk has gone too far and deserves to get nailed. Calling someone a pedo without evidence is just wrong.

Yet it's not illegal. Freedom of speech!!! He won't get shiit!

[The Deerhunter]

An interesting one this one!   On the surface totally baseless.  The 12 year old being 32 at the time,  (now 39-40!!!) 

But you wouldn't think Musk was so stupid to get himself into this position without evidence.   Stated originally and then withdrawn and apologised;  then re-stated!  And a couple of days ago I read somewhere he said "Sue me then,"  or words to that effect.   

 

The interesting thing is that Mr Unsworth says he has never even been to Pattaya or Phuket, EVER!!!!   Possible I guess but most farangs who have been coming here for a while have been to one or the other.  Straight off the plane into Chiang Rai every time ??  I guess it is possible.  And Musk says Unsworth has been coming here for 30 - 40 years. Interesting!   Maybe he is not talking about the current wife!

 

I guess we will have to curb our conclusions until more details emerge.   I wonder if Unsworth was pushed into suing ?  Watch for further developments.   Could get messy!!!

[side]

3 minutes ago, moutamine said:

Yet it's not illegal. Freedom of speech!!! He won't get shiit!

Freedom of Speech doesn't cover you for defamation of character.

[Artisi]

6 minutes ago, side said:

Sure I do.

 

Hence my point: which part of Unsworth's widely available interview on video constitutes defamation? He says the Musk's Submarine Pod wouldn't have made it through the cave, it couldn't have gone round corners etc. That's a technical opinion. 

It's not a technical point, as it was quoted by a layman (assuming Vern has no degree / design experience in that area) it is simply a matter of opinion and doesn't carry any weight and certainly not defamation, the only point was an insult and again not defamation.

[side]

1 minute ago, Artisi said:

It's not a technical point, as it was quoted by a layman (assuming Vern has no degree / design experience in that area) it is simply a matter of opinion and doesn't carry any weight and certainly not defamation, the only point was an insult and again not defamation.

Not defamation, I'll agree with that all the way.

 

Though I do understand that Unsworth has some technical knowledge of the caves as a diver and therefore his comment may fall into the technical category, but let's not split hairs as we agree in principle ?

[Slip]

22 minutes ago, colinneil said:

You clearly have no idea regarding the defamation laws in Thailand./

You post something bad about a company/person here and you can be sued, if you think i am wrong check it out.

So, answer the question- specifically what did Vern say that you feel was defamatory as opposed to merely unpleasant/ insulting?

[sanemax]

 

1 minute ago, The Deerhunter said:

An interesting one this one!   On the surface totally baseless.  The 12 year old being 32 at the time,  (now 39-40!!!) 

But you wouldn't think Musk was so stupid to get himself into this position without evidence.

Musk made the allegations of Vern marrying a 12 year old girl "off the record" , he told that to a media outlet and asked them to "keep it off the record" .

   Musk was saying to the media outlet *Report that , but dont say it came from me *

Musk was trying to spread false rumors , if Musk had any evidence of Vern marrying a 12 year old girl , he would have put his name to the quotes , but he asked the media not to name him as being the source of the allegation

[theonetrueaussie]

38 minutes ago, Horace said:

 

Musk is baiting Vernon.  He's quoted as saying that because he hasn't been sued, his original claim must be right.  Musk is even attacking the press because it has not investigated his claims.  From the Guardian:

 

Musk’s email to BuzzFeed, which was a response to Unsworth’s latest legal threats, said: “I suggest that you call people you know in Thailand, find out what’s actually going on and stop defending child rapists, you <deleted> <deleted> … As for this alleged threat of a lawsuit, which magically appeared when I raised the issue (nothing was sent or raised beforehand), I <deleted> hope he sues me.”

 

Musk sounds unhinged.  He's offered no proof to back up his claims.  Instead, he wants the press to "call people you know in Thailand".  What does is that supposed to mean?  Randomly start calling up people in Thailand?  Invest time and resources to investigate a claim Musk made simply because Musk is an "important person" and the press should follow-up on everything he claims, even though he doesn't provide a scintilla of evidence to back up his claims?

 

Musk is a billionaire, and could easily hire an investigator to find support for his claims if there was some.  But he hasn't done that.  Why?  The burden should be on Musk to provide evidence for such an outrageous claim.  Not the other way around.

 

But Musk is trying to make it work the other way around by putting the burden on Vernon (to, if the claims are false, disprove a negative), and, to some extent, he might succeed given the nature of the serious claims he is making.  Its a nasty and unfair ploy.  He's trying to set the rules of this dispute by claiming that if Vernon cannot prove he is not a sexual predator, he must be a sexual predator.  And if the press cannot find evidence that Vernon is a sexual predator, the press is not calling the right people to do their job. 

 

Sounds like Trump.

 

Musk has set this up where Vernon has little choice but to sue an unscrupulous and unstable billionaire.  Yes, he will be represented on a contingency fee basis.  But we have no reason at all to believe Musk's claims are true, and if Vernon was hoping to live a quiet life in northern Thailand, he's lost that now.  

 

 

 

That may be true or it may be that Musk is extremely smart, has the evidence and is letting you, the media and everyone else dig their own holes. Let it go to court and then provide evidence and make it seem like all his enemies supported a pedofile. As I said before only time will tell on this case. 

[JLCrab]

1 hour ago, snowgard said:

17 hours ago, JLCrab said:

In the USA, based upon a judge's procedural rulings, it might be Unsworth who has to prove that he is not a pedo.

I not think so. Him is not a public person. The cave story is a one time story. The law for private persons is easier:

Specifically, public figures and plaintiffs are not only required to prove that the allegedly defamatory statements in question are false and harmful, but that the party who made or published them acted with “actual malice” or “reckless disregard for the truth.” Private persons and plaintiffs have a much less strict standard they need to prove, and are only required to prove the party or organization in question published the statement(s) with ordinary negligence.

Source: https://www.minclaw.com/defamation-of-character-what-is-online-defamation/

But you overlooked this from that same website:

Limited-Purpose Public Figures (LPPFs)

LPPFs are generally persons who have only availed themselves to public comment, criticism, or debate for a particular issue or controversy