rooster59 Posted December 7, 2019 Share Posted December 7, 2019 Musk's defamation win may reset legal landscape for social media By Tom Hals FILE PHOTO - SpaceX owner and Tesla CEO Elon Musk speaks at the E3 gaming convention in Los Angeles, California, U.S., June 13, 2019. REUTERS/Mike Blake/File Picture (Reuters) - Elon Musk's daring has left its mark on electric cars and rockets, and now experts say the entrepreneur may have reshaped U.S. defamation law with his willingness to defend at a high-stakes trial a lawsuit over an off-the-cuff tweet. The victory by Tesla Inc's outspoken chief executive over a Twitter message describing a British cave explorer as "pedo guy" has raised the bar for what amounts to libel online, according to some legal experts. Musk defended his comments as trivial taunts made on a social media platform that he argued everyone views as a world of unfiltered opinion, which is protected as free speech, rather than statements of fact. "I think this verdict reflects that there is a feeling that internet tweets and chats are more like casual conversation whether you call it opinion or rhetoric or hyperbole and should not be punished in a lawsuit," said Chip Babcock, a lawyer who defends against defamation lawsuits. Several other attorneys who specialize in defamation cases privately expressed surprise at the outcome of what they viewed as a strong case for the cave explorer, Vernon Unsworth. They attributed it to Musk's fame and the perceived youthfulness of the jury. But they also agreed it would shift the legal landscape, undercutting the cases that would have seemed viable before the trial while defendants would use it to try to reduce possible settlement values. Musk's court papers cast his comments as part of the rough-and-tumble world of Twitter, which rewards and encourages emotional outbursts and sucks in readers worldwide but that no one takes seriously. Mark Sableman, a lawyer who defends defamation cases, said the freewheeling nature of social media has inevitably changed the understanding of language and what amounts to defamatory factual statements, versus opinion. "I think defendants in modern defamation cases are likely to point to the vitriolic no-holds-barred nature of modern social media, cable TV, and political discourse, in contending that many words and accusations formerly considered defamatory are now understood only as mere opinions, not factual assertions," he said. In general, to prove libel, the written form of defamation, someone must show the existence of a false statement, which defendants often try to present as opinion. The plaintiff also must show it was published to a third party, it was negligent and it caused harm. "While there is more leeway and more hyperbole online and in social media in general, courts never really accepted that argument that social media is a libel free-zone," said Lyrissa Lidsky, a professor who specializes in defamation at the University of Missouri School of Law. Several attorneys said Unsworth appeared to have a strong case, and noted that Musk failed to convince the judge to dismiss it at an early stage. But they cautioned that anything can happen in a courtroom where factors such as the credibility of witnesses and likeability of parties can become important factors. "Based on the court's pre-trial rulings on motions, Mr. Unsworth's case going in had the potential to underpin a substantial verdict in his favor," said John Walsh, who represents people bringing defamation cases. Unsworth helped rescue a boys soccer team from a flooded cave in Thailand and during a TV interview criticized Musk's "PR stunt" of showing up at site with a mini-submersible, which was never used. Musk responded with several tweets to his almost 30 million followers and a damaging email to a news outlet, and the lawsuit followed. In recent years, judges have been wrestling with social media comments and whether to consider them factual statements or protected opinions. U.S. President Donald Trump, singer and actress Courtney Love and actor James Woods have all been embroiled in multiple libel lawsuits over tweets, with mixed results. Trump has had success casting Twitter as a place where combatants trade demeaning messages that users understand are not defamatory statements of fact. Judge James Otero in Los Angeles dismissed a case against the president for a tweet blasting as a "total con job" a claim by adult film actress Stormy Daniels that she was threatened for speaking about an alleged affair with Trump. Otero described the message as "rhetorical hyperbole," fired off with an incredulous tone that no reasonable person would take as factual statement about Daniels, whose real name is Stephanie Clifford. Unsworth's attorney, Lin Wood, warned social media is "tearing at the fabric of society" and the Musk verdict would worsen that trend. "It is now said by this jury that insults are completely open season," he said. "Everyone should be concerned about their reputations." (Reporting by Tom Hals in Wilmington, Delaware; Editing by Noeleen Walder and Daniel Wallis) -- © Copyright Reuters 2019-12-08 Follow Thaivisa on LINE for breaking Thailand news and visa info Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chazar Posted December 7, 2019 Share Posted December 7, 2019 Bad news for all those poor easily offended snowflake generation ..........good Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Samui Bodoh Posted December 7, 2019 Share Posted December 7, 2019 47 minutes ago, rooster59 said: The victory by Tesla Inc's outspoken chief executive over a Twitter message describing a British cave explorer as "pedo guy" has raised the bar for what amounts to libel online, according to some legal experts. An interesting article, and one that is likely true. Where is the new limit for libel? Can you say... "Donald Trump is an <deleted> <deleted> <deleted> <deleted> <deleted>"? "Elon Musk is <deleted> <deleted> <deleted> <deleted>"? "Boris Johnson is <deleted> <deleted> <deleted> <deleted> <deleted>"? "Britney Spears is <deleted> <deleted> <deleted> <deleted> <deleted>"? "Xi Jin Ping is <deleted> <deleted> <deleted> <deleted> <deleted>"? "The Pope is a <deleted> <deleted> <deleted> <deleted> <deleted>"? "Adele is a <deleted> <deleted> <deleted> <deleted> <deleted>"? "God is <deleted> <deleted> <deleted> <deleted> <deleted>"? And, if not, why not? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ezzra Posted December 7, 2019 Share Posted December 7, 2019 Next time, why don't you go for a billion dollars in damages instead of 190 millions peanuts money just for being slurred on social media... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bkk6060 Posted December 7, 2019 Share Posted December 7, 2019 7 minutes ago, ezzra said: Next time, why don't you go for a billion dollars in damages instead of 190 millions peanuts money just for being slurred on social media... Many false comments regarding that the case was lost due to the amount requested. It had nothing to do with the not guilty verdict as many times the financial settlements are adjusted. In this case they found what he did as being non libel and non defaming. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doremifasol Posted December 7, 2019 Share Posted December 7, 2019 The name of the lawyer is Chip Babcock. This can't be serious.......... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sticky Wicket Posted December 7, 2019 Share Posted December 7, 2019 Congressman Devin Nunes sues CNN for $435M over ‘false and defamatory’ Ukraine story!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ukrules Posted December 7, 2019 Share Posted December 7, 2019 Vern should appeal this result. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crossy Posted December 7, 2019 Share Posted December 7, 2019 30 minutes ago, Samui Bodoh said: "God is <deleted> <deleted> <deleted> <deleted> <deleted>"? Headline - Thaivisa member struck by lightning on clear blue sky day! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarcB Posted December 8, 2019 Share Posted December 8, 2019 1 hour ago, Samui Bodoh said: An interesting article, and one that is likely true. Where is the new limit for libel? Can you say... "Donald Trump is an <deleted> <deleted> <deleted> <deleted> <deleted>"? "Elon Musk is <deleted> <deleted> <deleted> <deleted>"? "Boris Johnson is <deleted> <deleted> <deleted> <deleted> <deleted>"? "Britney Spears is <deleted> <deleted> <deleted> <deleted> <deleted>"? "Xi Jin Ping is <deleted> <deleted> <deleted> <deleted> <deleted>"? "The Pope is a <deleted> <deleted> <deleted> <deleted> <deleted>"? "Adele is a <deleted> <deleted> <deleted> <deleted> <deleted>"? "God is <deleted> <deleted> <deleted> <deleted> <deleted>"? And, if not, why not? Maybe 1 more example to make us all understand your point? Samui Bodoh is a <deleted><deleted><deleted> and also a <deleted><deleted> The limit for defamation should not include common insults and derogatory remarks, like we use daily, but rather "stories" on international tv that have a bad impact on someones career or business. Maybe I worded it wrong, but more serious stuff than just calling someone names. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
klauskunkel Posted December 8, 2019 Share Posted December 8, 2019 2 hours ago, rooster59 said: "I think this verdict reflects that there is a feeling that internet tweets and chats are more like casual conversation whether you call it opinion or rhetoric or hyperbole and should not be punished in a lawsuit," I think in this case the internet tweet is not a casual conversation but a published broadcast to millions of Musky followers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OneMoreFarang Posted December 8, 2019 Share Posted December 8, 2019 Let's not forget that this trial was in the USA. I am sure in many other countries the verdict would have been very different. I don't think it's a huge issue if one person insults another. I.e. if I say person X is an idiot or he calls me an idiot that is nothing special and nobody assumes anybody tested the IQ first to make such a statement. But there are other insults which are more than just a bad word. I.e. if someone calls someone else criminal, wife-beater, kiddy-fiddler, murderer, rapist, these words have a clear meaning and accusing people any of this is not just everyday banter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beggar Posted December 8, 2019 Share Posted December 8, 2019 3 hours ago, ezzra said: Next time, why don't you go for a billion dollars in damages instead of 190 millions peanuts money just for being slurred on social media... Unsworth might be bankrupt now... Too much greed and false advice - a very costly result. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pokerface1 Posted December 8, 2019 Share Posted December 8, 2019 Out the window flew the old saying “strives and stones will break my bones but names will never hurt me” if unsworth was really wanted to get even he should have challenged Musk to a duel with winner takes all. How is the time to make the challenge as the media is watching. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KhunBENQ Posted December 8, 2019 Share Posted December 8, 2019 In Germany a left/green female politician (unendurable person for me) was called a piece o. s... A court decided that this is covered by free speech. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikebell Posted December 8, 2019 Share Posted December 8, 2019 44 minutes ago, OneMoreFarang said: I am sure in many other countries the verdict would have been very different. Certainly in Thailand the courts will always find in favour of a Hi-so if someone makes an accusation. That's how corruption thrives here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Proboscis Posted December 8, 2019 Share Posted December 8, 2019 4 hours ago, Chazar said: Bad news for all those poor easily offended snowflake generation ..........good So it would be perfectly fine for someone to say something terrible about you and destroy your reputation? Losing your good name could have all sorts of implications, including employment, investments, being boycotted - ask Prince Andrew about the impact the loss of his reputation has had on his life. The laws of libel and slander have their origins almost a thousand years ago in England. I am sure that somewhere else, such as China, there are earlier references to them. Long before anyone knew what a "snowflake" was. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bendejo Posted December 8, 2019 Share Posted December 8, 2019 Here's a sarcastic take on it https://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/2019/12/hardscrabble-car-salesman-wins-defamation-trial/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Papafarang Posted December 8, 2019 Share Posted December 8, 2019 American justice Is a disgrace those jurors should off been taken to the cave system. Especially when it rains total disregard for the boys that where trapped and especially the experienced cave diver that lost his life then MUSK turns up a PR stunt musk was lucky he was only told stick it where the sun doesn’t shine with the pressure that everyone was under he might of got it shoved there Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
newatthis Posted December 8, 2019 Share Posted December 8, 2019 18 minutes ago, Proboscis said: So it would be perfectly fine for someone to say something terrible about you and destroy your reputation? Losing your good name could have all sorts of implications, including employment, investments, being boycotted - ask Prince Andrew about the impact the loss of his reputation has had on his life. The laws of libel and slander have their origins almost a thousand years ago in England. I am sure that somewhere else, such as China, there are earlier references to them. Long before anyone knew what a "snowflake" was. Destroy his reputation? Really? Do you believe Unsworth is a paedophille? Of course you don't. No logical thinking person would. And a jury would have seen that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MeePeeMai Posted December 8, 2019 Share Posted December 8, 2019 5 hours ago, bkk6060 said: Many false comments regarding that the case was lost due to the amount requested. It had nothing to do with the not guilty verdict as many times the financial settlements are adjusted. In this case they found what he did as being non libel and non defaming. I think the fact that he first told Musk to "stick your sub where the sun don't shine" played a large part in the outcome of the jury trial. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marqus12 Posted December 8, 2019 Share Posted December 8, 2019 Who cares what judgments are issued by courts in the third world country. They can't even clean the streets in half of the cities. The courts probably work "just as well "as garbage collectors. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EWnQFLNTaIk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MeePeeMai Posted December 8, 2019 Share Posted December 8, 2019 5 minutes ago, marqus12 said: Who cares what judgments are issued by courts in the third world country. They can't even clean the streets in half of the cities. The courts probably work "just as well "as garbage collectors. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EWnQFLNTaIk That ain't no ghetto, that's upper middle class America! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
overherebc Posted December 8, 2019 Share Posted December 8, 2019 3 hours ago, klauskunkel said: I think in this case the internet tweet is not a casual conversation but a published broadcast to millions of Musky followers. Isn't a Musk a big smelly animal that goes around smelling bad as well as banging it's head against other big smelly animals of the same kind? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HHTel Posted December 8, 2019 Share Posted December 8, 2019 Quote Elon Musk could face a retrial in his defamation case after a lawyer for the British cave diver he called a 'pedo guy' said the jury's decision was a mistake.Musk called Vernon Unsworth, 64, a 'pedo guy' on Twitter but was yesterday found not liable in the defamation case.Now, Unsworth's lawyer Mark Stephens claims the jury came to that conclusion based on the fact that Unsworth's name was not used in the tweet.He branded the jury's decision a mistake which could impact other defamation rulings in the future, The Mirror reports.Mr Stephens said: 'That is a serious problem. It doesn’t matter whether you’re a bullying billionaire or a penniless troll, that behaviour is destructive.'His team aim to file retrial papers by Christmas. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7767145/British-cave-diver-branded-pedo-guy-Elon-Musk-faces-potentially-ruinous-legal-costs.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pedrogaz Posted December 8, 2019 Share Posted December 8, 2019 Since he was interested in the money initially he should have pursued his case in Thailand where defamation is a criminal offense and distributing over the internet carries a prison term. Musk may well not have shown up but Unsworth may have had a victory in absentia. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billd766 Posted December 8, 2019 Share Posted December 8, 2019 1 hour ago, mikebell said: Certainly in Thailand the courts will always find in favour of a Hi-so if someone makes an accusation. That's how corruption thrives here. Whilst it took place in Thailand, the court was in the USA under USA rules and regulations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
atyclb Posted December 8, 2019 Share Posted December 8, 2019 2 hours ago, Proboscis said: So it would be perfectly fine for someone to say something terrible about you and destroy your reputation? Losing your good name could have all sorts of implications, including employment, investments, being boycotted - ask Prince Andrew about the impact the loss of his reputation has had on his life. do you perceive any differences between musk-unsworth and prince andrew-accusers cases? how does one lose their investments by being called a pedo? does the bank confiscate your house or savings account, stocks??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MeePeeMai Posted December 8, 2019 Share Posted December 8, 2019 2 hours ago, Proboscis said: So it would be perfectly fine for someone to say something terrible about you and destroy your reputation? Losing your good name could have all sorts of implications, including employment, investments, being boycotted - ask Prince Andrew about the impact the loss of his reputation has had on his life. The laws of libel and slander have their origins almost a thousand years ago in England. I am sure that somewhere else, such as China, there are earlier references to them. Long before anyone knew what a "snowflake" was. Let's see, I recall that Musk built and shipped a mini-sub to the cave in an attempt to assist in getting the boys out alive. Although he was unaware of the conditions that they faced with regards to the confined space and the tight squeezes (rendering the mini-sub unusable in the particular case), it was Vernon who publicly laughed at Musk, told him his sub was worthless and then told Musk to "Stick your sub where the sun don't shine." What effect did this have on Musk's reputation... as you put it - "Losing your good name could have all sorts of implications, including employment, investments, being boycotted". I think that Musk was simply returning the favor, although I think he could have done a much better job than just calling him a pedo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don Mega Posted December 8, 2019 Share Posted December 8, 2019 Congrats Elon, was nothing more than a tit for tat spat between 2 grown men, good to see justice prevailed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.