Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst ...
2
3
4
5
LastLast
  1. #61
    Pandaren Monk Voidism's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    In the shadows!
    Posts
    1,962
    Why did he call him a pedo in the first place? For fun? I don't get it.

  2. #62
    Quote Originally Posted by Voidism View Post
    Why did he call him a pedo in the first place? For fun? I don't get it.
    The diver hurt his feeling calling that sub his company built a pr stunt since it most likely would be useless in the cave

  3. #63
    Quote Originally Posted by bungeebungee View Post
    No, you've cherry picked some language that apparently triggers you and you think it should trigger me, but that isn't really proof of anything. Again, look at any thread mentioning age of consent or pedophilia here as an example and you'll see child rape thrown around as a legal technicality to add emphasis. Where did Musk make his remarks? On the Internet. What standard should apply? The crap that people talk on the Internet should be taken into account as context.
    That isn't cherry-picking. It's showing you factual information that he went one step further and made all sorts of accusations that were potentially harmful. The e-mail and its contents were made available to the public, don't pretend it doesn't exist, or is on the same level of immature bickering on a public forum. You speak about context, then you completely ignore Musk's following and influence. Someone of that public stature shouldn't make such slanderous comments, then double down on them, then accuse him of all sorts of things. Period.

    One of your big "points" seems to be somebody hired a PI ... with the possibility of litigation, and with truth being a defense in that kind of case. Doh. Of course he did, and were you in that exact situation (not merely quarreling but probably about to be sued for a huge sum) you'd be a fool not to do the same.
    That point was to illustrate that Musk actually went out of his way to follow-through, so it was more than an insult. At the end of the day, he shouldn't have hired a PI or said anything further to stoke the fire. He should have just made an apology; and left it at that.

    Seems the jury and I saw it in much the same light, jackassery on the Internet. The guy got an apology and a take down, anything else *should* have been held very strictly to the elements of the alleged offense.
    If the jury really bought that "pedo guy" as some sort of defence to exonerate Musk, then the US legal system is an even bigger joke than first realised. If you read his follow-up comments, and the e-mail, it's clear as daylight what kind of "pedo" he was referring to. Ultimately that really was not what lost Vernon the court case. People with such a huge following have a much bigger responsibility of what they say; this isn't some random dude with 100 followers. And again; it wasn't just an insult either.

  4. #64
    Quote Originally Posted by bungeebungee View Post
    Erm, ya keep *saying* that, but the jury heard the evidence and didn't agree. You're going to need to do better than just saying "it went much further than that". Proof please.
    Okay, so we have someone with billions of dollars and a huge social media following making public comments that defames a guy because he told him to sod off on national television. If Musk had stopped there, maybe you could say that it was some little insult. But nah, he kept on pressing the issue to the point of, what was it, saying that he's in Thailand because of child trafficking? Then spending tens of thousands of dollars to hire someone to verify his nonsense?

    Maybe you're on the same stuff some of those jurors were on.

  5. #65
    Quote Originally Posted by Fargus View Post
    The proof was already provided in this thread, for the nth time. Learn to read. Accusing someone of getting child-brides and doing kiddy-fiddling shit is not just an "internet insult".

    - - - Updated - - -


    Don't switch the goalposts here. You actually thought Vernon did this on Twitter, hence the "he could've blocked him easily" comment. You don't even know how the events transpired, and that suddenly makes you an armchair lawyer on defamation law?


    Hiring a PI is a common theme when people call each other morons on the internet, is it? This just tells me you lack any kind of critical thinking skills here.

    I've called people morons plenty of times throughout the years online, and I can afford a PI. Do I get one? No. Because I'm not someone like Elon Musk who continues to berate someone in public because they told me to piss off in a TV interview. Ego isn't as big.
    No i was responding to you:

    Lol, yes you can. It's called the block button. Or just laugh in their face. You think like a child.
    Not only going so far as to insult me but making a point that has nothing to do with the topic. After I stated you can't insult someone and be butt hurt after they insult you back, and that was your pathetic attempt at a ,durrr, yeah you can block them. Try and stick to the subject.

    I assumed the guy had a twitter. If he doesn't oh well, it actually has nothing do with the fact that nothing Illegal was done. As proven in court.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Kerplank View Post
    Okay, so we have someone with billions of dollars and a huge social media following making public comments that defames a guy because he told him to sod off on national television. If Musk had stopped there, maybe you could say that it was some little insult. But nah, he kept on pressing the issue to the point of, what was it, saying that he's in Thailand because of child trafficking? Then spending tens of thousands of dollars to hire someone to verify his nonsense?

    Maybe you're on the same stuff some of those jurors were on.
    What do finances or twitter following have to do with it? Also exactly how much did he spend? Both of them kept pressing the issue, which probably played a large roll in the jury's decision. You all act like this was unprovoked. It wasn't.

    This was nothing more than someone trying to become a millionaire over a tweet.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Fargus View Post

    That point was to illustrate that Musk actually went out of his way to follow-through, so it was more than an insult. At the end of the day, he shouldn't have hired a PI or said anything further to stoke the fire. He should have just made an apology; and left it at that.
    It isn't illegal to hire a PI, and he had nothing to apologize for.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Fargus View Post
    That isn't cherry-picking. It's showing you factual information that he went one step further and made all sorts of accusations that were potentially harmful. The e-mail and its contents were made available to the public, don't pretend it doesn't exist, or is on the same level of immature bickering on a public forum. You speak about context, then you completely ignore Musk's following and influence. Someone of that public stature shouldn't make such slanderous comments, then double down on them, then accuse him of all sorts of things. Period.


    That point was to illustrate that Musk actually went out of his way to follow-through, so it was more than an insult. At the end of the day, he shouldn't have hired a PI or said anything further to stoke the fire. He should have just made an apology; and left it at that.


    If the jury really bought that "pedo guy" as some sort of defence to exonerate Musk, then the US legal system is an even bigger joke than first realised. If you read his follow-up comments, and the e-mail, it's clear as daylight what kind of "pedo" he was referring to. Ultimately that really was not what lost Vernon the court case. People with such a huge following have a much bigger responsibility of what they say; this isn't some random dude with 100 followers. And again; it wasn't just an insult either.
    So exactly how many followers does one have to have before they have to censor their speech? Such an authoritarian way of thinking. If you insult someone expect to get it back, and possibly even worse.
    Last edited by Jettisawn; 2019-12-07 at 05:05 PM.
    The worst part about the internet is that it let the truly crazy, racist, and bigots find each other easily.

  6. #66
    Quote Originally Posted by Kerplank View Post
    Okay, so we have someone with billions of dollars
    Quote Originally Posted by Kerplank View Post
    spending tens of thousands of dollars
    Come now...

    What's tens of thousands to someone with billions? You can't really use both in the same argument.

  7. #67
    Old God I Push Buttons's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    Cincinnati, Ohio
    Posts
    10,746
    Quote Originally Posted by Kerplank View Post
    Okay, so we have someone with billions of dollars and a huge social media following making public comments that defames a guy because he told him to sod off on national television. If Musk had stopped there, maybe you could say that it was some little insult. But nah, he kept on pressing the issue to the point of, what was it, saying that he's in Thailand because of child trafficking? Then spending tens of thousands of dollars to hire someone to verify his nonsense?

    Maybe you're on the same stuff some of those jurors were on.
    Defamation (in the US, where this case occurred) requires the plaintiff to prove damages.

    This guy didn't suffer any damages... Quite the opposite happened, pretty much everyone rallied around him and told Musk to fuck off.

  8. #68
    Unsurprising. Calling someone a jackass or whatever on a website, shouldn't be a court case. Otherwise, I would be bankrupt by now.
    Last edited by Sygmar; 2019-12-07 at 06:11 PM.

  9. #69
    Pandaren Monk Voidism's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    In the shadows!
    Posts
    1,962
    Quote Originally Posted by Rustedsaint View Post
    The diver hurt his feeling calling that sub his company built a pr stunt since it most likely would be useless in the cave
    Wow, talk about sensitive.

  10. #70
    Geeze I know about a half a dozen creepy ass looking dudes on the internet that would be billionaires by now with the sheer number of people calling them the same name just because of the way they look.
    Whether SHE IS INDICTED OR EVEN GUILTY IT DOESNT MATTER. HER GUILT IS A MOOT POINT!!! - Fox News 2016
    You don’t have to be convicted of a crime to lose your job in this Constitutional Republic,” - Sen (r) Graham 1999

  11. #71
    The Lightbringer Monster Hunter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2019
    Location
    Astera
    Posts
    3,495
    Quote Originally Posted by Jettisawn View Post
    I did not, but it's clear the Jury didn't think so.

    I know defimation is hard to prove even under the best of circumstances in US courts, and a tweet is not one of those cases.
    Same in the UK, there almost not worth considering and even if you win the payout often barely covers half the cost of bring the case.

    Defamation, slander and liable arnt worth the time unless your really super salty over something and what to make a point.
    stuck in the D2:shadow keep Que....please send help!

  12. #72
    Quote Originally Posted by Jettisawn View Post
    Not only going so far as to insult me but making a point that has nothing to do with the topic. After I stated you can't insult someone and be butt hurt after they insult you back, and that was your pathetic attempt at a ,durrr, yeah you can block them. Try and stick to the subject.
    Then stop arguing like a child. You can't even get the sequence of events right, I pointed that out. You chide me about not understanding the laws surrounding this case, when one of your earlier posts said that the threshold of proof is beyond reasonable doubt. Which was wrong.

    What do finances or twitter following have to do with it? Also exactly how much did he spend? Both of them kept pressing the issue, which probably played a large roll in the jury's decision. You all act like this was unprovoked. It wasn't.
    The guy has 30 million followers, his word clearly resonates with a lot of people. Many take his word as gospel. Of course it's relevant. That's why people with such a massive following have a responsibility to watch what they say because every word is greatly scrutinised. That's part and parcel of being such a large public figure. Vernon Unsworth did not press the issue at all, all he told Musk was to fuck off. He didn't exchange any dis-pleasantries after that. Again, you seem to have little grasp of the events that had transpired.

    This was nothing more than someone trying to become a millionaire over a tweet.
    You do realise the finding of defamation and the payout are two different processes, right? Vernon's initial claim was $75k, it is clear he got bad advice from his lawyers and figured he'd might as well go for it. Hypothetically if Musk was found guilty, the judge does not have to give out the $190m sum... it is up to the judge's discretion. Whether the payout demand is ridiculously overdone or not should have no bearing on whether something defamatory was said.

    It isn't illegal to hire a PI, and he had nothing to apologize for.
    That isn't the point. Hiring a PI goes to show that it went further than a simple internet insult. I called you childish but I'm not going to dig dirt up on you.

    So exactly how many followers does one have to have before they have to censor their speech? Such an authoritarian way of thinking. If you insult someone expect to get it back, and possibly even worse.
    Musk did more than just call him a "pedo guy". High-profile figures have a responsibility of what they say as someone with such a massive following has a lot of influence. He could amass an army of people to harass this guy online if he wanted to. It's not censorship or authoritarian, it's common sense and actually being a decent human being. Don't call someone a pedo, then infer they're in a country for child sex trafficking. It's a really disgusting thing to say, such comments are amplified to a massive extent when millions of people are watching. Such things can potentially ruin people's lives, that's why I disagree with the jury's verdict because it opens such a precedent.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Zan15 View Post
    Geeze I know about a half a dozen creepy ass looking dudes on the internet that would be billionaires by now with the sheer number of people calling them the same name just because of the way they look.
    And how many of those people were called out by someone like Elon Musk? Along with the various other slanderous comments he said?

  13. #73
    Merely a Setback cubby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    the Quiet Room
    Posts
    25,552
    Quote Originally Posted by Heidelstein View Post
    The jury are idiots.

    Perhaps the diver's lawyer was Lionel Hutz, because in this case, he had plenty to go on. Not only this comment came from one of the world's most known businessmen, but the massive following and media attention it was getting would've amplified the comment. Musk claims that it was just some "off the cusp" comment, but that's ridiculous because he doubled down and claimed that because he's an old guy living in Thailand, he must be a kiddy-fiddler. He even had the fellow investigated to try to bring dirt on him ffs. That is NOT simply a little insult or barb.

    Imagine if someone went out of their way to make your life hell like that? Now, amplify it by x1000 because of a massive following and media presence. If I were to do what Musk did to you, I would've been hauled in front of court and found guilty. For sure.
    Lol, gotta love someone who attacks the system/jurors/any-moving-target when they don't like the outcome. Did you see all the evidence? Did you hear all the testimony? Are you familiar with the legal standards for the charge?

    I mean, talk about pot calling the kettle black....
    No one is above the law!

  14. #74
    I am Murloc! shadowmouse's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Dongbei, PRC ... for now
    Posts
    5,222
    The Musk trial was part of a larger issue -- how comments on social media should be regarded. Here is an article addressing that point: https://news.yahoo.com/musks-defamat...014900986.html

    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.
    This case isn't going to make things more civil, but a decision against Musk would have paved the way for even more litigation over flaming. I'd just as soon not see ambulance chasing become a regular forum feature.
    "No one -- however smart, however well-educated, however experienced -- is the suppository of all wisdom"

    Sixty years. One sexagenary cycle complete, a new adventure awaits.
    shadowmouse, previously bungeebungee

  15. #75
    Quote Originally Posted by Fargus View Post
    Then stop arguing like a child. You can't even get the sequence of events right, I pointed that out. You chide me about not understanding the laws surrounding this case, when one of your earlier posts said that the threshold of proof is beyond reasonable doubt. Which was wrong.


    The guy has 30 million followers, his word clearly resonates with a lot of people. Many take his word as gospel. Of course it's relevant. That's why people with such a massive following have a responsibility to watch what they say because every word is greatly scrutinised. That's part and parcel of being such a large public figure. Vernon Unsworth did not press the issue at all, all he told Musk was to fuck off. He didn't exchange any dis-pleasantries after that. Again, you seem to have little grasp of the events that had transpired.


    You do realise the finding of defamation and the payout are two different processes, right? Vernon's initial claim was $75k, it is clear he got bad advice from his lawyers and figured he'd might as well go for it. Hypothetically if Musk was found guilty, the judge does not have to give out the $190m sum... it is up to the judge's discretion. Whether the payout demand is ridiculously overdone or not should have no bearing on whether something defamatory was said.


    That isn't the point. Hiring a PI goes to show that it went further than a simple internet insult. I called you childish but I'm not going to dig dirt up on you.


    Musk did more than just call him a "pedo guy". High-profile figures have a responsibility of what they say as someone with such a massive following has a lot of influence. He could amass an army of people to harass this guy online if he wanted to. It's not censorship or authoritarian, it's common sense and actually being a decent human being. Don't call someone a pedo, then infer they're in a country for child sex trafficking. It's a really disgusting thing to say, such comments are amplified to a massive extent when millions of people are watching. Such things can potentially ruin people's lives, that's why I disagree with the jury's verdict because it opens such a precedent.

    - - - Updated - - -


    And how many of those people were called out by someone like Elon Musk? Along with the various other slanderous comments he said?
    Clearly not how it works, and your assumption has already been proven wrong via the not-guilty verdict. I saw this coming as soon as I heard about it. Even suing fo 75k is a moot point. Why do you ignore the guy who also perpetuated the incident every step of the way?

    We've had such things happen in the past and even then they defended the person right to Free Speech. This was ruled by the highest court.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hustle...ine_v._Falwell
    Last edited by Jettisawn; 2019-12-08 at 02:22 AM.
    The worst part about the internet is that it let the truly crazy, racist, and bigots find each other easily.

  16. #76
    The Undying Doctor Amadeus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    In Security Watching...
    Posts
    38,322
    Of course not, I hope the moron that sued him has to pay court cost. Was what Elon Musk said stupid and wrong yes, but him calling this dips hit a pedophile doesn't make it so.
    "Intellect alone is useless in a fight...you can't even break a rule, how can you be expected to break bone" Khan Singh

  17. #77
    Quote Originally Posted by Jettisawn View Post
    Clearly not how it works, and your assumption has already been proven wrong via the not-guilty verdict. I saw this coming as soon as I heard about it. Even suing fo 75k is a moot point. Why do you ignore the guy who also perpetuated the incident every step of the way?

    We've had such things happen in the past and even then they defended the person right to Free Speech. This was ruled by the highest court.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hustle...ine_v._Falwell
    Juries get things wrong some of the time. I read earlier that the incriminating e-mail was not included as evidence... a pretty bad mess up on their part. You are just an Elon Musk boot-licker because you can't admit that it was mostly his fault.

  18. #78
    Quote Originally Posted by cubby View Post
    Lol, gotta love someone who attacks the system/jurors/any-moving-target when they don't like the outcome. Did you see all the evidence? Did you hear all the testimony? Are you familiar with the legal standards for the charge?

    I mean, talk about pot calling the kettle black....
    Was following a live feed of a journalist who was actually physically there, taking notes and explaining what the lawyers were actually saying, what evidence was used, etc. Just remember not to cry foul when someone with such a massive platform accuses you of breaking the law and attempting to make your life shit by digging dirt on you.

  19. #79
    Quote Originally Posted by s_bushido View Post
    Come now...

    What's tens of thousands to someone with billions? You can't really use both in the same argument.
    I certainly can, because they're not mutually exclusive. He's got billions so he can afford the best lawyers, the best PR team and so on. Yet at the same time, he spent his money chasing up on this guy. Whether it's ten cents or a billion dollars, guy went out of his way to smear him some more. What this decision does is simply empower people like Elon Musk some more. He should have just not continued on with it.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by I Push Buttons View Post
    Defamation (in the US, where this case occurred) requires the plaintiff to prove damages.

    This guy didn't suffer any damages... Quite the opposite happened, pretty much everyone rallied around him and told Musk to fuck off.
    Pretty sure he would've suffered quite a lot of emotional/mental damage from this, a circus like this would put a lot of stress on the average person. Maybe his lawyers just didn't argue the point well enough.

  20. #80
    Merely a Setback cubby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    the Quiet Room
    Posts
    25,552
    Quote Originally Posted by Heidelstein View Post
    Was following a live feed of a journalist who was actually physically there, taking notes and explaining what the lawyers were actually saying, what evidence was used, etc. Just remember not to cry foul when someone with such a massive platform accuses you of breaking the law and attempting to make your life shit by digging dirt on you.
    But YOU didn't see all the evidence or seen all the testimony. And you didn't cite the journalist. I'm just trying to say your information isn't complete. Although I could have been less of a jerk about it.

    I can see where people feel like this is some kind of travesty. But no one commenting here was involved in the trial. Even the journalist you were following didn't see and here everything.

    And remember it was dismissed by a jury that did see all relevant evidence. Dismissed in an hour. One hour. That's a very big deal in legal circles. Similar to a summary judgment, in a sense.

    I also understand that feelings play a big part in observed from afar trials, especially if/when you've already made up your mind before hand. Which we've all done, me included.
    No one is above the law!

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •