Tesla boss Elon Musk wins defamation trial over 'pedo guy' tweet

[Kinnock]

11 hours ago, Cryingdick said:

 

 

Yeah had Vern been the slightest bit gracious he could have made a powerful ally for Thailand. Show Musk the poverty in the villages, maybe Musk would have gotten involved. Vern has really done a tragic disservice for all of Thailand. 

 

 

He's no Bill Gates ($4.7 Billion donations last year), the Guardian says $54 million for Musk, which included donations to his daughters school, to a fund to reduce traffic congestion on his commute to work, to his Brother and to support AI development - which will ultimately benefit his business.

 

But Musk's businesses are not truly profitable, so he's giving away other people's money anyway.

 

Don't believe his spin.  The Thai cave project was just another example of his PR drive.

[BestB]

12 minutes ago, wealthychef said:

 

Way to move the goal posts!  OK, so we agree he slandered with his remark.  The amount of damage done is supposed to be figured out by the courts.  Personally, I'd say for sure, it's worth a small fraction of Musk's fortune.  The fact is that the amount is so mind boggling because of the enormous wealth Musk has.  If we are under a punishment theory of justice, then it should hurt Mr. Musk the Pedophile.  

This made even less sense than your previous post

[spidermike007]

18 hours ago, sirineou said:

You mean to say that Musk started this by offering to help? How dare he?

Well, if your version of help, is to offer a high tech, but impractical solution without consulting any experts first, than yes. But I agree it was totally unfeasible. Therefore possibly a publicity stunt. Would not be the first time for this brilliant man who could be described as a street moron. 

[AsianAtHeart]

I think the speech that emerged from Musk after the wicked criticisms of his genuine attempt to help were an indication of how much those false accusations had wounded him.  I believe he had truly done his best to help; and let's remember that it was not only on behalf of himself that he attempted to defend "his" efforts, because he had had an entire team putting in extra long hours to come up with a solution under immense time pressure.  Surely, his whole team was demoralized by the entirely unnecessary, meritless, and seemingly vendetta-driven remarks by Unsworth.  Musk was hurt.  He didn't need any PR--he already has plenty of that.  This was not just for PR--it was of the goodness of his heart that he was trying to help.

 

Let's not forget that Elon Musk didn't volunteer his team's assistance without being requested by one of those involved in the cave rescue.  He was answering, as best he could, the cry for help that had been sent him.  If he had stepped in without being asked, one might have a little more reason to think he could have done it just for the PR--but even then, that level of suspicion is really uncalled for.  Did America, for example, bring in over half of the rescue team just for the PR?  Obviously not, as most don't even know that America had such a large presence at the scene.

 

I'm glad that Musk won in court.  The win doesn't justify his speech, but in this case his speech did not justify the damages sought, either.

[BigStar]

5 hours ago, JAG said:

I think the basic, insurmountable, problem, was that a submarine, by definition a rigid article, could not be bent to fit through the tight and angled caves

The basic, insurmountable problem is that simple-minded Unsworth assumed, at the time of his CNN interview, that Musk & engineers must follow a dictionary definition and in the end would be too stupid to come up with something flexible that might work. Or, that after further studying over the situation (with Mr. Unsworth's kind assistance) would be too stupid to agree with his own conclusions. It appears that was what he very much wanted to assume.

 

Quote

Mr Unsworths knowledge of the cave system rather does qualify him to speak on the matter.

Nor would anyone object to, but rather appreciate, his sharing his knowledge, especially if done so with basic courtesy. One might well object to a false accusation and gratuitous insult, however, made on international cable TV. 

Musk & team were qualified to look into the situation and had a perfect right to do so. Unsworth's qualifications might also have enabled him to act as a paid consultant in that research had he so wished. Musk & team weren't asking that any other plans for rescue be delayed.

 

But more to the point is that it was only Mr. Unsworth's arrogance that qualified him to go on CNN (so making him a public figure against whom it would be harder to prove defamation) to label Musk's effort as insincere PR (which Musk hardly needs) AND quite rudely insult him. Mr. Musk's own ego then qualified him to return the insult in spades.

 

The jury took this little playground spat about as seriously as it should be. It should never have reached trial, actually.

[sirineou]

2 hours ago, spidermike007 said:

Well, if your version of help, is to offer a high tech, but impractical solution without consulting any experts first, than yes. But I agree it was totally unfeasible. Therefore possibly a publicity stunt. Would not be the first time for this brilliant man who could be described as a street moron. 

nothing can be considered unfeasible until it is offered and considered. I am sure the Thai authorities must have received many offers of help they could not use, I Am also sure  that their rejection of such offers did not include "thank you for your offer to help, can you please stick it up your <deleted>?"

[torturedsole]

Interesting. 

 

What does Vern do?  If Vernon loses again then he obviously doubles his financial woes.  Hmmm.

 

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7767145/British-cave-diver-branded-pedo-guy-Elon-Musk-faces-potentially-ruinous-legal-costs.html

[newatthis]

3 minutes ago, torturedsole said:

Interesting. 

 

What does Vern do?  If Vernon loses again then he obviously doubles his financial woes.  Hmmm.

 

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7767145/British-cave-diver-branded-pedo-guy-Elon-Musk-faces-potentially-ruinous-legal-costs.html

Puts paid to the statement "I'll take it on the chin and get on with life."  $ signs rule again.

[spidermike007]

9 hours ago, Sticky Wicket said:

Congressman Devin Nunes sues CNN for $435M over ‘false and defamatory’ Ukraine story!!

Nunes is one of the great morons of recent American politics. Does he realize how inane he appears? 

[AsianAtHeart]

36 minutes ago, torturedsole said:

Interesting. 

 

What does Vern do?  If Vernon loses again then he obviously doubles his financial woes.  Hmmm.

 

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7767145/British-cave-diver-branded-pedo-guy-Elon-Musk-faces-potentially-ruinous-legal-costs.html

I'm not sure anything in that article is accurate after reading there that Unsworth was "one of the hero divers."  An article published by the BBC after the rescue certainly did not mention him among the foreign divers it listed.  Confirm this for yourself here: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-44761821

 

Neither does this article, published earlier this year, make any mention at all of Mr. Unsworth, despite detailing vividly, with names of rescuers involved, the rescue operation.

https://www.macleans.ca/thai-cave-rescue-heroes/

 

Can anyone here confirm that Unsworth is even a diver?  My understanding all along was that he was a caver, but not a diver.  There is a difference.  Maybe the news reporters have conflated the two.

 

 

[canopy]

4 hours ago, spidermike007 said:

if your version of help, is to offer a high tech, but impractical solution without consulting any experts first, than yes

Amazing how many people don't yet know the truth. I hate to be the one to tell you, but Elon consulted the cave experts in Thailand from day one. The experts immediately dismissed Elon's idea known as the the bouncy castle approach--a flexible tube pumped up with air and the kids would crawl all the way out on their own. The cave experts on the ground in Thailand instead encouraged Elon to develop the sub system and they gave Elon precise details of inside the cave and the requirements of the passages. Richard Stanton, one of the two divers who found the kids, was instrumental in the design of the sub. When he talked, Elon listened and several types of subs were made. The one below was for the tightest part known as the choke point. The subs were designed, built, tested, and delivered in mind boggling time by many experts from all walks of life and even non-Elon companies. Everyone just wanted to help save the kids in any way they could. While several of the subs did arrive shortly before the kids were rescued, the rescue time window was closing and the gears of rescue were already turning. There was no turning back, no chance of a U turn to a different strategy. Quite simply, the ship had already left the harbor.

 

Another thing people don't seem to know anything about which is also incredible. The system the rescuers committed to was extremely dangerous and the probability of survival was low. When they went to put the mask on the smallest kid it didn't fit or seal because his head was too small. All the kids were knocked out by doctors who signed diplomatic immunity agreements. The kids were bound to stretchers and dragged around like rag dolls through murky turbulent currents and jagged rocks underwater. Rescuers had no idea if the kids were alive or corpses as they moved them along. But a testament to their skill and courage the experts got all the kids out despite some very close calls. And keep in mind one rescuer paid with his life. After the rescue everyone in the world was thankful and relieved, save for one person who threw a pack of lies and insults out on CNN saying Elon had no idea of anything about the cave and only offered a rigid sub yada yada yada. Does that look rigid to anyone? Judge the truth for yourself, the emails from Richard Stanton, the photos of the subs that came before the rescue, not Vern's grotesque words of slander after the fact.

 

 

[sanemax]

1 hour ago, AsianAtHeart said:

I'm not sure anything in that article is accurate after reading there that Unsworth was "one of the hero divers."  An article published by the BBC after the rescue certainly did not mention him among the foreign divers it listed.  Confirm this for yourself here: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-44761821

 

Neither does this article, published earlier this year, make any mention at all of Mr. Unsworth, despite detailing vividly, with names of rescuers involved, the rescue operation.

https://www.macleans.ca/thai-cave-rescue-heroes/

 

Can anyone here confirm that Unsworth is even a diver?  My understanding all along was that he was a caver, but not a diver.  There is a difference.  Maybe the news reporters have conflated the two.

 

 

Unsworth isnt a cave diver , he is a caver .

He is often erroneously referred to as a diver , just a simple mistake by some people

[Myran]

Ladies and gentlemen: the jury system.

 

It would've been one thing if Musk had tossed out the insult once, but he didn't. He doubled down saying he bet a signed dollar it was true and then had his victim investigated in an attempt to find something that would back up his pedophile claims.

 

Absolutely unbelievable that he got away with it. I would expect this from a country as corrupt as Thailand, but the U.S. is apparently not any better.

[sanemax]

9 minutes ago, Myran said:

Ladies and gentlemen: the jury system.

 

It would've been one thing if Musk had tossed out the insult once, but he didn't. He doubled down saying he bet a signed dollar it was true and then had his victim investigated in an attempt to find something that would back up his pedophile claims.

 

Absolutely unbelievable that he got away with it. I would expect this from a country as corrupt as Thailand, but the U.S. is apparently not any better.

And Musk even stated that Vern married a 12 year old girl .

He said it as a statement of fact , rather than an abusive insult 

[racket]

Way to go Elon! ...and nice try Unsworth because you ain’t going to squeeze money out of someone just because he calls you pedo.. and by the way YOU started the whole mess. Now go home and I have lost all respect for you. You are no longer a hero, and will be remembered as a loser. 

[sanemax]

8 minutes ago, racket said:

Way to go Elon! ...and nice try Unsworth because you ain’t going to squeeze money out of someone just because he calls you pedo.. and by the way YOU started the whole mess. Now go home and I have lost all respect for you. You are no longer a hero, and will be remembered as a loser. 

Do you think that its quite acceptable to falsely accuse people of committing crimes ?

Lying is quite acceptable ? 

[torturedsole]

9 minutes ago, Myran said:

Ladies and gentlemen: the jury system.

 

It would've been one thing if Musk had tossed out the insult once, but he didn't. He doubled down saying he bet a signed dollar it was true and then had his victim investigated in an attempt to find something that would back up his pedophile claims.

 

Absolutely unbelievable that he got away with it. I would expect this from a country as corrupt as Thailand, but the U.S. is apparently not any better.

You said it and let's keep things in perspective.  A jury found Musk not guilty.  Just saying.  

 

[sanemax]

13 minutes ago, torturedsole said:

You said it and let's keep things in perspective.  A jury found Musk not guilty.  Just saying.  

 

I do disagree with the jury .

 

[torturedsole]

9 minutes ago, sanemax said:

And Musk even stated that Vern married a 12 year old girl .

That isn't in dispute.  The jury found Elon hadn't defamed Vernon for their various reasons which is the job of a jury, whether you like the result, or not.  

[torturedsole]

1 minute ago, sanemax said:

I do disagree with the jury .

That's your prerogative.  But you weren't a juror so your opinion isn't relevant.  

[sanemax]

9 minutes ago, torturedsole said:

That's your prerogative.  But you weren't a juror so your opinion isn't relevant.  

Although my opinion is quite relevant here on TVF , where we are discussing the case .

If all our opinions are irrelevant here on TVF, we all may as well stop talking to each other and all go home 

[canopy]

If you listen to the jurors that were there you will find the justice system worked flawlessly in this case. Some people say Vern lost because he asked for a greedy sounding $190 million. Wrong. Some people say justice was not served because the severity of Elon's words were so sky high. Wrong again. If you listen to the jurors you will find the defense lawyer made a key mistake. The defense strategy was to make a highly emotional argument on behalf of Vern. This might have actually worked and struck a chord with say a bunch of fat, uneducated moms on the jury. Not this jury. This jury was acutely aware the defense needed to meet five criteria to prove defamation and they were systematically checking them off with a pencil. The jurors said the defense clearly failed to meet all five criteria and deliberation was done in just 20 minutes. There was really nothing to deliberate about. The jurors applied the case to the law and it didn't hold up. I for one assumed Vern would win this case easily, but there was a strategy miss and key omissions by a lawyer who has a reputation of being extremely good at what he does.

 

[sanemax]

9 minutes ago, canopy said:

If you listen to the jurors that were there you will find the justice system worked flawlessly in this case. Some people say Vern lost because he asked for a greedy sounding $190 million. Wrong. Some people say justice was not served because the severity of Elon's words were so sky high. Wrong again. If you listen to the jurors you will find the defense lawyer made a key mistake. The defense strategy was to make a highly emotional argument on behalf of Vern. This might have actually worked and struck a chord with say a bunch of fat, uneducated moms on the jury. Not this jury. This jury was acutely aware the defense needed to meet five criteria to prove defamation and they were systematically checking them off with a pencil. The jurors said the defense clearly failed to meet all five criteria and deliberation was done in just 20 minutes. There was really nothing to deliberate about. The jurors applied the case to the law and it didn't hold up. I for one assumed Vern would win this case easily, but there was a strategy miss and key omissions by a lawyer who has a reputation of being extremely good at what he does.

 

What are those five criterias that needed to be met ?

[AsianAtHeart]

28 minutes ago, sanemax said:

Unsworth isnt a cave diver , he is a caver .

He is often erroneously referred to as a diver , just a simple mistake by some people

Well, nowadays, when a "simple mistake" like this gets published in news like the Daily Mail, it's called "fake news."  A reporter that fails to get an easily verified fact like this correct cannot be trusted to have anything else correct. 

[sanemax]

9 minutes ago, AsianAtHeart said:

Well, nowadays, when a "simple mistake" like this gets published in news like the Daily Mail, it's called "fake news."  A reporter that fails to get an easily verified fact like this correct cannot be trusted to have anything else correct. 

I do disagree, just because a person makes one mistake , that doesnt mean that everything they say is a mistake .

Caver /Cave diver , part of the cave diving team , although not actually diving .

The slight misreporting  can be overlooked in this case .

One slight mistake is a little mistake and that doesnt render the whole report as being fake or incorrect

[monkfish]

4 minutes ago, AsianAtHeart said:

Well, nowadays, when a "simple mistake" like this gets published in news like the Daily Mail, it's called "fake news."  A reporter that fails to get an easily verified fact like this correct cannot be trusted to have anything else correct. 

Oh they know i've seen it a lot I guess it makes for a better story if he's a diver who risked his life to save 15 children rather than a guy who offered some advice and hung around the cave entrance.

[SkyFax]

24 minutes ago, sanemax said:

What are those five criterias that needed to be met ?

[Name of plaintiff] claims that [name of defendant] harmed [him/her] by

making [one or more of] the following statement(s): [list all claimed per

se defamatory statement(s)]. To establish this claim, [name of plaintiff]

must prove all of the following:

 

Liability

1. That [name of defendant] made [one or more of] the statement(s)

to [a person/persons] other than [name of plaintiff];

2. That [this person/these people] reasonably understood that the

statement(s) [was/were] about [name of plaintiff];

[3. That [this person/these people] reasonably understood the

statement(s) to mean that [insert ground(s) for defamation per se,

e.g., “[name of plaintiff] had committed a crime”];]

4. That the statement(s) [was/were] false; and

5. That [name of defendant] failed to use reasonable care to

determine the truth or falsity of the statement(s).

 

 

[elgenon]

Just like in Thailand, the rich prevail. Remember the trial of O.J.?

[sanemax]

9 minutes ago, SkyFax said:

[Name of plaintiff] claims that [name of defendant] harmed [him/her] by

making [one or more of] the following statement(s): [list all claimed per

se defamatory statement(s)]. To establish this claim, [name of plaintiff]

must prove all of the following:

 

Liability

1. That [name of defendant] made [one or more of] the statement(s)

to [a person/persons] other than [name of plaintiff];

2. That [this person/these people] reasonably understood that the

statement(s) [was/were] about [name of plaintiff];

[3. That [this person/these people] reasonably understood the

statement(s) to mean that [insert ground(s) for defamation per se,

e.g., “[name of plaintiff] had committed a crime”];]

4. That the statement(s) [was/were] false; and

5. That [name of defendant] failed to use reasonable care to

determine the truth or falsity of the statement(s).

 

 

How could the Jury not find Musk guilty as his tweets seem to tick all the boxes

[torturedsole]

40 minutes ago, sanemax said:

Although my opinion is quite relevant here on TVF , where we are discussing the case .

If all our opinions are irrelevant here on TVF, we all may as well stop talking to each other and all go home 

Calm down.  I'll elaborate, your opinion isn't relevant to the not-guilty verdict.  Apologies if that wasn't clear but I did state that you weren't a juror.