I had an uncertain read because I could believe that Elon with his vast resources knew something, and I couldn't understand why Elon would risk complicating his leadership of his companies without some grounding.
If I understand correctly, in the Ninth Circuit, the fame and affluence of the speaker does not matter, but instead the notoriety of the alleged defamed.
The jury can award an amount they feel is appropriate. There are actual, measurable damages involved in a case like this, then there are punitive damages that are awarded with the intent to deter future behavior like this.
EM's net worth is in the $20 billion neighborhood. Knocking off a few zeros, that's like a $190 judgement against a person who's worth $20,000.
I agree, I am a Elon fan. But if the lawsuit was a million dollars or less Elon should have to pay, 190 million is sheer greed. Even if the term is different where he came from, he knows international communications can be tricky.
Just ask the people Tesla fans have made fun of for trying to sell the ETron in France.
A massively popular and powerful public figure calling a layman a pedo, doubling down several times, and pretending they have proof is not enough? No, you'd rather pretend that OP's imagined feelings are unreasonable, not this billionaire's temper tantrum. Shame on you.
He's insulting some guy who was being rude to him. He can do that if he wants whether he's a powerful public figure or not. It's called free speech. If you don't like it, go cry to your mommy little soy boy.
It's not that surprising when you consider that the British guy opened the conversation by suggesting that Musk stick his submarine up his ass. That kind of set the tone of the conversation, i.e. mean and figurative.
'Generations' are a myth of corporate shitculture. People are born every year, not in the discrete chunks dreamt up by lifestyle-column-addled decerebrates.
MMmmm. Would have thought that was not a defense for him seeing as he then went on to call him a child rapist:
> “I suggest that you call people you know in Thailand, find out what’s actually going on and stop defending child rapists, you fucking asshole,” Musk wrote in the first message. “He’s an old, single white guy from England who’s been traveling to or living in Thailand for 30 to 40 years, mostly Pattaya Beach, until moving to Chiang Rai for a child bride who was about 12 years old at the time.”
There's quite a difference between a diver insulting Musk's submarine, and Musk, who is famous and has millions of loyal followers, calling him a paedophile.
In your experience men publicly declare (in writing) that other men are pedophiles and child rapists who only move to Thailand to have sex with 11-year-olds "all the time"?
Where do you live so I can make sure to never visit there.
If you're referring to the barbershop scene, yes, it does have two men who have a long-established friendship insulting each other - and then when an unknown (to the barber) 3rd party uses the _exact_same_language_ the barber pulls a gun on him.
The lesson you should take from that scene is that what might be acceptable banter between friends is not acceptable public discourse with strangers.
WALT
Jesus Christ, Tao, you don't walk
in and insult a guy. What are
you, an idiot?
TAO
But... but that's what you said.
That's what you said men say.
WALT
Not if you never met the guy. If
you say that shit to the wrong
stranger, they'll blow your
goddamned ---- head off!
It may indeed not be acceptable public discourse, but that does not make one entitled to money via the courts, any more than Trump was entitled to money from Congresswoman Rashida Tlaib for accusing him of having sex with his mother.
He's an American, they have strange notions about free speech and completely disregard the idea of public peace. This is precisely at the heart of the case. No one gets to be the target of a lynchmob when someone tells him to stick a large object up his bum. But someone might well believe that someone moved to Thailand because they have certain proclivities and join the lynchmob.
The goal of the law isn't to catch criminals, it's to prevent crime. That's why some countries really come down hard on those that would disrupt the peace.
> In your experience men publicly declare (in writing) that other men are pedophiles and child rapists who only move to Thailand to have sex with 11-year-olds "all the time"?
Would I declare that a specific man I had no knowledge of did that? No. Would I declare that at some point in recent history at least two men have moved to Thailand for the purpose of sexually exploiting children? Yes, because I'm pretty sure it's true. Like, here's two examples from two minutes on Google [0][1] true.
I don't care about Musk one way or the other. But staging a campaign to deliberately tarnish somebody's reputation without evidence is exactly a matter for the courts and the reason why we have defamation laws in the first place
Generally speaking, I think it's a Really Bad Idea if ultra-wealthy people can literally say anything they want without consequence and use their money/fame etc to terrorize people and destroy their reputation.
How about when Congresswoman Rashida Tlaib accused (on national TV) the President of having intercourse with his mother? She's in a powerful political position (more than Musk's).
So you're gonna make an incredibly disingenuous argument by trying to equate calling someone a 'Motherfucker' with 'Pedo Guy', one of which is an average insult completely disconnected from what you're trying to create and the other which was created by Musk, who hired a private investigator to try and fish out claims while also trying to shop it around to social media outlets in attempt to push the idea that Unsworth was actually a pedophile.
No evidence was required. California recognises defamation per se, removing the burden of proof on the plaintiff to prove that damage occurred when it is obvious that it would have.
If it were just an insult Musk wouldn't have doubled down in later comments and hired a PI to verify his claim.
Just because "locker room talk" viz two men trading insults isn't a good look, it's a bit much to involve to courts and suggest that you've been hurt to the tune of nearly $200M... especially when you started it.
I guess it comes down to proportionality and if you believe that "your solution is a ridiculous PR stunt" warrants a response of "I'm going to destroy your reputation"
I know that such nuance in conversation is not de rigueur on today's internet.
I absolutely agree that destroying someone's reputation is a ridiculous escalation from the original comment, but 1) the guy's reputation hasn't been destroyed at all (regardless of whether or not that was Musk's intent), and 2) either way, that still doesn't seem like a matter for the courts.
I guess I'm also just so sick of the heavily litigious nature of our society that I have a visceral negative reaction to something like "you were mean to me on the internet so I'm going to sue you for $RIDICULOUS_SUM".
I would say that the amount of damage to his reputation is exactly the sort of thing that the court case is supposed to measure. From this distance and with the facts we have it's hard to tell.
I don't live in the US so maybe you suffer more from litigation fatigue than me. If it were two nobodies trolling it out on twitter I would agree with you - who cares? But Musk's statements are heavily reported internationally and this was in the middle of an internationally-reported event and he chose to go after one of the central figures, both on twitter and in the media.
Characterising that as just being mean on the internet is a little disingenuous imo.
There is also difference between insulting a submarine, and telling someone to stick a submarine where it hurts. That's homosexual innuendo loaded with a phallic reference, about on par with a "pedo" insult.
How is this not the consensus? This guy said on national television that Elon musk is a psychopath who has no empathy for dying children — that the submarine was purely a cold and calculated PR stunt. This is the embodiment of defamation. A stupid, brutish thing to say and it’s not factually correct to boot. And then he tops it all off by telling Elon musk he should shove the submarine up his ass. Seriously fuck this guy. In my opinion Elon musk should sue him for defamation.
But nobody cares about Elon musk because hEs RiCh So FuCk HiM
If I was the judge I'd award Musk his legal fees and bill the plaintiff court costs. It was nothing more than a few back and forth schoolyard insults, and had no place being in court.
It shouldn't have gone beyond - "Now both of you boys apologize to each other and shake hands."
I'm glad you're not a judge. It would be awful for a judge to express such emotion and absolutism in the dismissal of even the possibility of harm caused by one of the most famous people on Earth very publicly calling a person a pedophile.
I'm glad I'm not, either. I would take no pleasure in punishing people, even those who richly deserve it. I would also be uninterested in hearing a case from two silly people who really should settle it with a mutual apology and a handshake.
Clearly the part about it being subjective is a reasonable source of disagreement. Personally, I think the notion that insulting somebody somehow automatically clears that person from defamation charges regardless of how they respond is ridiculous (this is a comment on what you and the parent post appear to be implying, not on Elon's case).
I get what you're saying, but when I look at this case, all I can think is, that some guy sued another guy for being mean on the internet, and that's just dumb.
It's tempting to look at the players involved, especially Musk, who has a history of being a loose cannon and a bit of a dick, and want to punish him for his misdeeds, but I just don't see it that way.
Comments like this always comes from someone that creates a throwaway account just to make the comment. I'm always amazed at the effort that is put into stuff like this. Rather than dumping their garbage on HN, they should take it to the chans where it is generally expected.
It hinged on whether "pedo guy" was an actual attempt to brand someone as a pedophile, or whether it was an insult, which, at least in the US, is protected free speech.
Odd considering that Musk hired a personal investigator (apparently a fraudster) in a misguided attempt to prove that Unsworth was, in fact, a pedophile. Kinda defeats that argument, doesn't it?
My comment wasn't about that. I was saying that, if the case did in fact hinge on what Musk meant by calling Unsworth "pedo guy", then it should have been a slam dunk in Unworth's favor. So then, by the contrapositive and crap, we should assume in a logical universe that the case didn't hinge on the meaning of the term "pedo guy."
Didn't he hire the investigator after making the claim? That would make it him trying to cover his ass after making an unfounded assertion, which fits pretty well into the reckless category.
What the investigator found (nothing in this case) is immaterial. The law should protect people from being defamed on a hunch that may or may not later turn out to be true.
So then I can call someone a "pedo", hire a personal investigator to prove that fact specifically, and then turn around and claim I didn't literally mean they were a pedophile?
If you anticipate that their argument is that you were actually calling them one, then yes, it's the sensible thing to do to prepare yourself.
There are only a few defenses to that as an element: "No I didn't," "So what, nobody would actually believe an obvious insult," (that's the one that won) and "It's true." The latter automatically wins the suit if proven, so it makes sense to probe for it among the others.
If I recall from reading a memo/recap of the session yesterday, that exact argument came up.
I'm still shocked he won, mind you. My understanding was that he googled the Thai area in question and read its reputation before making the statement, which sure makes it look like he meant it at face value.
Enjoying the protection of being able to insult people who deserve to be insulted? Unsworth's "provoking" certainly did not deserve the drunken, reckless response that Musk gave, nor later attempts to find dirt on Unsworth.
I'm insulting Elon Musk for being a rude jerk. And according to his own argument, I'm getting away with it. I mean, no one could possibly equate Elon Musk with something that noxious waste spews from, could they?
I would lean towards the "insult" interpretation if not for Musk's later comments ("bet you a signed dollar it's true" and "stop defending child rapists").
I think this is a very poor result. $190M was obviously excessive, but $0 isn't right either.
Thanks for clarifying this; it would have been nice if it was stated in the article! Of course the $190m figure is ludicrous, but it’s not like the jury was forced to choose $190m or zero. They must have been told to apply U.S. federal defamation law, and the article doesn’t explain what that means.
If the question the jury answered was derived from the First Amendment, the outcome could well be different in countries that have defamation laws but not the First Amendment. The demanded sum of $190m is irrelevant to the jury’s decision that there was nothing to award damages for.
The other crux, which I'd say affects my thought process, is that Unsworth seemed unable to prove damages. If no damage was done (or could be proven), then Musk is innocent.
The precedent this sets is bad IMO. I wish there was some degree of damages awarded here. But I can see the argument playing out like that legally. Like the saying goes: no harm, no foul. If Unsworth literally wasn't damaged by this event, then Musk has to be innocent.
The litigator asked for $5 Million in nominal damages.
If the litigator asked for $1 in nominal damages, maybe the Jury could have considered that as an option. But the litigator played the game this way.
EDIT: I'm not a lawyer, but I see why the litigator went with the "go big or go home" strategy, asking for $190 Million in total damages. But the strategy seems to have backfired.
Of course not. But the litigator has to plant an agreeable idea into their brain. That's literally the litigator's job, and they clearly failed at it.
Its not the jury's job to come up with legal maneuvers. The jury are just normal people, like me or you, who may not know all the ins and outs of the law. The litigator makes a case, the litigator makes the arguments, and finally: the litigator bring up some options for what the jury can do.
That's the job of the lawyer in this situation: to bring up the best options for representing your case. The litigator went all in with a $190 Million accusation, ignoring the possibility of smaller fees or awards. Its a bold strategy, but it failed.
EDIT: /s/defense/litigator. I got my legal terms mixed up...
It's defamation per se (he repeatedly accused Unsworth of being a pedophile), proving damages is not necessary. I...do not understand what the jury was thinking.
> I...do not understand what the jury was thinking.
Allegedly, none of the jury members were on Twitter (although they may have used other social media accounts).
As such, the jury was quite possibly thinking "There's no way a Twitter post could cause $190 Million in damages". They probably view Twitter posts with disdain and don't take them seriously. In effect, they probably believe that "a Tweet, even an untrue one, is unlikely to cause lasting damages".
I'm disappointed. Money and influence defeated a just outcome. Hiring the private investigator speaks of bad intent: Musk should not have been allowed to claim " I didn't mean it" if he went looking for evidence that.. he did mean it.
A Tesla short-seller was at the court tweeting about it, he thought this is an easy win before it started, but then correctly predicted that Musk will walk. He thought that Unsworth's attorney was terrible.
Seriously? I have a hard time believing he actually thought the person was a child pedo, or that the other person actually thought that, or that any person observing the conversation would actually think that.
> Hiring the private investigator speaks of bad intent: Musk should not have been allowed to claim " I didn't mean it" if he went looking for evidence that.. he did mean it.
Truth is an absolute defence to defamation in the US. So Musk's legal+pr teams probably decided to check that out on the off chance that it was true.
Obviously just speculating, but I would imagine a mitigating factor was that Elon and Unsworth were already involved in a public spat before the tweet in question.
I think if you tell someone to sodomize themselves with a submarine, you may get called names in return. To then run to the courts demanding $190 million in damages is a bit of a stretch.
Another factor could be that Musk was persuasive in convincing the jury that he wasn’t asserting a fact that he knew was false in that tweet, but an insulting colloquialism, which would not meet the definition of defamation (as I understand it - and IANAL).
Ultimately how you evaluate the result is in the eye of the beholder.
It does seem to me that Musk has learned from this, and there’s been a notable lack of controversy in his Twitter feed over the last several months.
Defamation is the act of harming somebody's reputation. All that needs to be proven is that there was one more person who thought he was a pedo as a result of Musk's statements.
Thankfully we have the judicial branch to interpret what was written hundreds of years ago.
Besides, the 1st prevents the government from making laws that abridge the freedom of speech. It doesn't give every tantrum-throwing cowboy the right to spout off without consequence.
This result and about half of the comments here are depressing. How is it possible that so many presumably smart people don't understand the massive difference between an insult ("he looks like a pedo") and defamation ("he is a pedo, I've actually looked into it")?
He said he was a pedo, then reiterated, then told others to "stop defending a child rapist", then said "you don't think it's strange he hasn't sued me". He might have been joking all along, but jokes like these have a price.
I'm a great fun of Musk, but I can't help thinking that the jury here acquitted him only because he's a sort of American hero. Which is disgusting.
150 comments
[ 3.7 ms ] story [ 191 ms ] threadI think this is the key issue. $190m is clearly exorbitant for a defamation lawsuit.
Shame because Musk crossed the line and an example needed to be set that corporate executives should be held to account for their actions.
EM's net worth is in the $20 billion neighborhood. Knocking off a few zeros, that's like a $190 judgement against a person who's worth $20,000.
Just ask the people Tesla fans have made fun of for trying to sell the ETron in France.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
I hope Elon Musk still takes this as a learning experience despite the good outcome (from his perspective and that of his companies).
https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=pedo%20guy&d...
I just went searching in the obvious place, and it's almost like this was planted for people like me: https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=pedo%20guy&d...
It's satire.
Holy scam
Pedo was a shortened version of pedophile the same as everywhere else.
Did they rule for Elon because of some legal technicality?
Or was it because of the exorbitant defamation claim?
Or was it because Elon was correct in his claim?
> “I suggest that you call people you know in Thailand, find out what’s actually going on and stop defending child rapists, you fucking asshole,” Musk wrote in the first message. “He’s an old, single white guy from England who’s been traveling to or living in Thailand for 30 to 40 years, mostly Pattaya Beach, until moving to Chiang Rai for a child bride who was about 12 years old at the time.”
https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/ryanmac/elon-musk-thai-...
He had no actual knowledge that the guy wasn't a child rapist, and he did use reasonable care to verify his "facts", so it wasn't willful defamation.
No, he made the claim before he hired the investigator.
What?! I can't even..
More importantly, he had no actual knowledge that the guy _was_ a child rapist
You don't really get to initiate crude insults and then cry to the courts when you get one back in kind.
Where do you live so I can make sure to never visit there.
If you're referring to the barbershop scene, yes, it does have two men who have a long-established friendship insulting each other - and then when an unknown (to the barber) 3rd party uses the _exact_same_language_ the barber pulls a gun on him.
The lesson you should take from that scene is that what might be acceptable banter between friends is not acceptable public discourse with strangers.
Actual dialog (https://www.imsdb.com/scripts/Gran-Torino.html):
Would I declare that a specific man I had no knowledge of did that? No. Would I declare that at some point in recent history at least two men have moved to Thailand for the purpose of sexually exploiting children? Yes, because I'm pretty sure it's true. Like, here's two examples from two minutes on Google [0][1] true.
0: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Paul_Neil
1: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-thailand-paedophile/thai-...
What great strides we are taking.
She had no evidence, and faced no consequences.
If it were just an insult Musk wouldn't have doubled down in later comments and hired a PI to verify his claim.
I know that such nuance in conversation is not de rigueur on today's internet.
I guess I'm also just so sick of the heavily litigious nature of our society that I have a visceral negative reaction to something like "you were mean to me on the internet so I'm going to sue you for $RIDICULOUS_SUM".
I don't live in the US so maybe you suffer more from litigation fatigue than me. If it were two nobodies trolling it out on twitter I would agree with you - who cares? But Musk's statements are heavily reported internationally and this was in the middle of an internationally-reported event and he chose to go after one of the central figures, both on twitter and in the media.
Characterising that as just being mean on the internet is a little disingenuous imo.
I hope you don't mean to suggest that saying someone is homosexual is on a par with saying that they're a pedophile. The former is not defamatory.
But nobody cares about Elon musk because hEs RiCh So FuCk HiM
It shouldn't have gone beyond - "Now both of you boys apologize to each other and shake hands."
I'm glad I'm not, either. I would take no pleasure in punishing people, even those who richly deserve it. I would also be uninterested in hearing a case from two silly people who really should settle it with a mutual apology and a handshake.
Peasants don’t get to shake hands with barons. Ours have a legal system to (sometimes, not always) even things out just a little, though.
It's a bit messed up that Musk then hired a sketchy PI to dig up dirt on the guy, but that also is not defamation.
It's a bid ludicrous to suggest that you're owed $190M because someone insulted you on the internet (after you insulted them).
It's tempting to look at the players involved, especially Musk, who has a history of being a loose cannon and a bit of a dick, and want to punish him for his misdeeds, but I just don't see it that way.
Looks like the jury decided the latter.
The fact that he hired a pro investigator (or at least one who professionally held himself out as one) kind of makes 'reckless' hard to prove.
What the investigator found (nothing in this case) is immaterial. The law should protect people from being defamed on a hunch that may or may not later turn out to be true.
There are only a few defenses to that as an element: "No I didn't," "So what, nobody would actually believe an obvious insult," (that's the one that won) and "It's true." The latter automatically wins the suit if proven, so it makes sense to probe for it among the others.
If I recall from reading a memo/recap of the session yesterday, that exact argument came up.
I'm still shocked he won, mind you. My understanding was that he googled the Thai area in question and read its reputation before making the statement, which sure makes it look like he meant it at face value.
Elon Musk is a dickhole.
I think this is a very poor result. $190M was obviously excessive, but $0 isn't right either.
If the question the jury answered was derived from the First Amendment, the outcome could well be different in countries that have defamation laws but not the First Amendment. The demanded sum of $190m is irrelevant to the jury’s decision that there was nothing to award damages for.
Seems to be the crux of the defense that was employed.
The precedent this sets is bad IMO. I wish there was some degree of damages awarded here. But I can see the argument playing out like that legally. Like the saying goes: no harm, no foul. If Unsworth literally wasn't damaged by this event, then Musk has to be innocent.
If the litigator asked for $1 in nominal damages, maybe the Jury could have considered that as an option. But the litigator played the game this way.
EDIT: I'm not a lawyer, but I see why the litigator went with the "go big or go home" strategy, asking for $190 Million in total damages. But the strategy seems to have backfired.
EDIT: /s/defense/litigator
Its not the jury's job to come up with legal maneuvers. The jury are just normal people, like me or you, who may not know all the ins and outs of the law. The litigator makes a case, the litigator makes the arguments, and finally: the litigator bring up some options for what the jury can do.
That's the job of the lawyer in this situation: to bring up the best options for representing your case. The litigator went all in with a $190 Million accusation, ignoring the possibility of smaller fees or awards. Its a bold strategy, but it failed.
EDIT: /s/defense/litigator. I got my legal terms mixed up...
Allegedly, none of the jury members were on Twitter (although they may have used other social media accounts).
As such, the jury was quite possibly thinking "There's no way a Twitter post could cause $190 Million in damages". They probably view Twitter posts with disdain and don't take them seriously. In effect, they probably believe that "a Tweet, even an untrue one, is unlikely to cause lasting damages".
I find it hard to believe that he wasn't making the case that the guy is an actual pedo.
Truth is an absolute defence to defamation in the US. So Musk's legal+pr teams probably decided to check that out on the off chance that it was true.
I think if you tell someone to sodomize themselves with a submarine, you may get called names in return. To then run to the courts demanding $190 million in damages is a bit of a stretch.
Another factor could be that Musk was persuasive in convincing the jury that he wasn’t asserting a fact that he knew was false in that tweet, but an insulting colloquialism, which would not meet the definition of defamation (as I understand it - and IANAL).
Ultimately how you evaluate the result is in the eye of the beholder.
It does seem to me that Musk has learned from this, and there’s been a notable lack of controversy in his Twitter feed over the last several months.
As for the larger picture "defamation" is incompatible with the first amendment and laws around it should be invalidated.
Besides, the 1st prevents the government from making laws that abridge the freedom of speech. It doesn't give every tantrum-throwing cowboy the right to spout off without consequence.
Because I don't sell anything. What's to stop me from making a smear campaign about you?
I'm a great fun of Musk, but I can't help thinking that the jury here acquitted him only because he's a sort of American hero. Which is disgusting.