Jump to content
BANGKOK
rooster59

Musk's defamation win may reset legal landscape for social media

Recommended Posts

Musk's defamation win may reset legal landscape for social media

By Tom Hals

 

2019-12-07T021415Z_1_LYNXMPEFB6025_RTROPTP_4_MUSK-LAWSUIT-VERDICT.JPG

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)

 

reuters_logo.jpg

-- © Copyright Reuters 2019-12-08

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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...

  • Haha 1
  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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. 

  • Like 2
  • Confused 2
  • Sad 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

 

Edited by KhunBENQ

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...