7 minutes ago, Crustyhk said:

So does this mean we should all be fine if we call musk a “pedo”?

Indeed - and musk can also call Trump a pedo as we now know its perfectly fine so long as you get a bit heated before.

Well everybody is always against politically correctness here is the proof that you can still use insults online and that all the ones whining that you have to be politically correct are wrong. 

17 minutes ago, cmrichsw said:

I wonder if there are attorney fees, I know many so called lawyers that would be happy to get involved for the notiety. 

No, no fees. American lawyers all work for free out of the generosity of their hearts. 

9 minutes ago, cmrichsw said:

I wonder if there are attorney fees, I know many so called lawyers that would be happy to get involved for the notiety. 

Both parties pay their own attorney fees unless the claim arises out of a contract or the plaintiff was deemed a vexatious litigant .  This did not arise from a contractual agreement and had the plaintiff been deemed a vexatious litigant, the case would have been dismissed at pretrial hearing.  Court costs such as filing fees , subpoena fees , deposition fees etc are awarded to the prevailing party . 

1 minute ago, justin case said:

wow, greedy much

Not in musk terms. Not even 0.75% of what he's worth, so pretty trivial really.

32 minutes ago, sirineou said:

What are your thoughts about someone telling you to stick something where it hurts? Do you think that's right?

This is common vernacular, it obviously doesn't mean anything literal. Musk's retorts were of a whole different order of magnitude, and it was clear that he meant them, in spite of his courtroom u-turn. 

 

It's irrelevant now the case is lost, but I doubt Unsworth went out on a limb claiming that Musk's sub was a PR stunt. Far more likely that he was expressing the general view of the other cave divers on site. Was he unwise to say so in a crude manner during a CNN interview? Sure. But Musk's multiple responses were totally disproportionate and completely unnecessary - he missed every opportunity to respond to Unsworth's original comment with dignity. 

Disappointing Vern should have got something 

2 minutes ago, mrfill said:

Not in musk terms. Not even 0.75% of what he's worth, so pretty trivial really.

In no sense of reality can I call $190 million "trivial".

 

I don't feel Musk's wealth should be a factor in the decision. The prevailing factor must be whether healthy legal precedence is being set in awarding someone such a vast sum of money for what is clearly a childish insult made in the heat of a disagreement. 

So wrong!

 

A peadophile label can get you killed .and is if incorrect a defamation of character.

 

If he didnt mean it he should not have said it, but obviously mouth engaged before brain

 

2 hours ago, MarineEquine said:

One law for the rich and another for the poor. 

I haven't seen even one poor person sued for $190 million. ????

5 minutes ago, Tug said:

Disappointing Vern should have got something 

He will be getting something . Musks legal bill to pay ????

2 hours ago, MarineEquine said:

One law for the rich and another for the poor. 

Of course, money spoke.......

Had Vern been an American it might have gone the other way. Cards were stacked against a Brit againt an American in an American court.

When your as rich as Musk, you don’t lose court cases,  but I also remember Unsworth saying it wasn’t about money, he just wanted to clear his name, so how come he was claiming 190 million dollars in damages  ?

2 hours ago, mittheimp said:

Very odd. Probably the worse insult you can give.. and then doubled down on it in several ways.. given by someone with a global reach of millions. If that is not defamation then i dont know what is.

Money speaks.......

1 minute ago, Booboo101 said:

When your as rich as Musk, you don’t lose court cases,  but I also remember Unsworth saying it wasn’t about money, he just wanted to clear his name, so how come he was claiming 190 million dollars in damages  ?

Perhaps name was very dirtY requiring lots and lots and lots and lots of clearing ????

There certainly are defamation suits in criminal courts in Thailand. 
 

Sansiri sued a VIP customer over Tweets complaint for poor quality condos in Phuket.  

It’s in front of the criminal court as we speak.  
 

This is a classic way to shut up consumer complaints in a very unclassy way by thin skinned companies pretending to operate by international standard. 
 

 

A post containing some Twitter posts has been removed as this is not a Twitter page. 

2 hours ago, mittheimp said:

Very odd. Probably the worse insult you can give.. and then doubled down on it in several ways.. given by someone with a global reach of millions. If that is not defamation then i dont know what is.

First off to he defamation one has to say something with the intent to cause harm to someome reputation. You cant charge everyone with first degree murder that commits murder. Yes calling him a pedo was bad. What vern said was also bad. Lets face facts here elon also could have filed a defamation case aginst vern for his commit to him trying to make him look bad. But he didnt. Why. More then likely knew it was on the spot and emotions were high because of the situation and was said out on emotions not out of intent. Therefore no defimation could have been commited. 

Justice has been Served.
Unsworth started the slagging match this by going on CNN and insulting Musk in front Millions of viewers did he not expect a reaction he was baiting Musk.

23 minutes ago, Penicillin said:

Both parties pay their own attorney fees unless the claim arises out of a contract or the plaintiff was deemed a vexatious litigant .  This did not arise from a contractual agreement and had the plaintiff been deemed a vexatious litigant, the case would have been dismissed at pretrial hearing.  Court costs such as filing fees , subpoena fees , deposition fees etc are awarded to the prevailing party . 

That would imply that the Lawyers  for Unsworth, who were acting  pro bono, are up for  covering the court costs? Their ticket in  the lottery not a winner ? Or the other way around?

Either way it will be for sure that  Musk's Lawyers  will not be cheap so that at least  should compensate a little for the objections of outcome.

 

This is very good!
Justice!

$190 million for a tweet... 
I am sure Unsworth been dreaming about a new car, home and diver-suit...and now both feet back on the ground.

 

Tesla Pedo in the making ...

2 hours ago, MarineEquine said:

One law for the rich and another for the poor. 

In some ways that is true. The rich get sued for many things that the poor never would be. Of course that is because the rich tend to have deeper pockets and it costs relatively little for people to play litigation lotto against them. 

 

David

3 hours ago, Fex Bluse said:

Vern should not have wasted his time and money. 

 

That aggressive defamation nonsense only works in undeveloped countries like Thailand. 

 

Never should have mouthed off about Musk's efforts to help either. 

You can tell the Americans posting re this...Vern was insulted by Murk...think of the worst insult in the USA and thats what Murk called Vern...and if thats USA justice then Trump is secure for ever

clearly Musk was wrong in what he said, but he also seemed to ride that "line of defamation."  I think it was just broad enough where I thought the verdict would go either way.  He didn't detail pedo guy enough to really destroy this guy.  He didn't give examples of how he knew this guy was a real pedo, so I didn't really believe this guy was a pedo.  But i did think he destroyed his reputation, if his reputation is worth anything.  I had a feeling maybe he would have to pay maybe 100,000 USD and after legal costs it would be a wash.   But this pedo guy did make it in the national news, so he wasn't exactly a private citizen, which I think also matters.  Anyhow, rich people get off with things that aren't 100% obvious.  

3 hours ago, rooster59 said:

The case is believed to be the first major defamation lawsuit by a private individual to go to trial over tweets.

There we have the reason, why Unsworth lost, not that I am on Musk's side, Musk should have stuck to what he knows best and left Unsworth alone to do what he does best, in saying that, we know who the real hero here is, and I dare say so does the world, so Unsworth won, not in monetary terms, but in publicity, and sorry but I don't buy the part that his lawyer said, i.e. he can't find work, yeh right........

 

At the end of the day, if Unsworth won, the courts would be backlogged for miles in tweeter defamation cases, suffice to say, those sitting on the side lines will now not even consider taking defamation cases to court over tweetie pies IMO

 

To end, if your going to take on someone who has lots of money, be prepared to lose, because we all know, money reaches people anywhere, jurors, judges, etc, etc, just saying, wink wink, nudge nudge, say no more.

 

In the famous words of one tweetie: 

 

2 hours ago, mittheimp said:

Very odd. Probably the worse insult you can give.. and then doubled down on it in several ways.. given by someone with a global reach of millions. If that is not defamation then i dont know what is.

Agreed...............Worst insult any one British can have flung at them

2 hours ago, mtls2005 said:

It's a bit ironic that the defendent called the plantiff "pedo guy" in one tweet. The planitff could have just let it go and it never would have been mentioned again.

 

But no, he took the bait and now "pedo guy" has been used in relation to him what, 1 million times. And he had to hear "Pedo Guy" thousands of times during the trial. And every Google Search for his name will contain the words "Pedo Guy".

 

What a doofus.

 

 

Not to mention all those, who don’t bother with details, will think he lost because he is a “pedo guy”

Not only Vernon lost his case, he also lost his face.