Elon might be in a whole heap of trouble, British cave diver brings lawsuit over pedophillia tweets

[mr moose]

1 minute ago, Sakkura said:

Yeah. It fits the sexual part and the crime part, so it's pretty clear that it falls under defamation per se.

 

Musk is only getting out of this either by proving it true or on some jurisdictional grounds.

Yeah, I edited, defiantly the crimes part as that seems to pertain mostly to moral turpitude which a claim of pedophilia is probably the best example you could ask for. 

 

Still, I think given it's the US and he has a stink load of cash he'll probably find a way out.

[Master Disaster]

4 minutes ago, mr moose said:

Yeah, I edited, defiantly the crimes part as that seems to pertain mostly to moral turpitude which a claim of pedophilia is probably the best example you could ask for. 

 

Still, I think given it's the US and he has a stink load of cash he'll probably find a way out.

If he's got any sense he will settle out of court however this is where my understanding falls short.

 

As Mr Unsworth is seeking an injunction against him can he actually settle out of court or would that interfere with the injunction appeal?

 

The low amount of compensation and injunction might actually be a clever plan to make sure he's dragged through the courts fully.

[mr moose]

Just now, Master Disaster said:

If he's got any sense he will settle out of court however this is where my understanding falls short.

 

As Mr Unsworth is seeking an injunction against him can he actually settle out of court or would that interfere with the injunction appeal?

Most out of court settlements have agreements that please both parties,  it is likely Elon would sign something saying he will not say anything about Mr Unsworth again or the whole thing goes back to court.   

 

I was watching this case for a long time keen to see the outcome then it was dismissed with prejudice and now I will never know beyond the obvious what the outcome would have been.

 

https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/4394374/ali-v-facebook-inc/

[Sauron]

22 minutes ago, Sniperfox47 said:

What "police" do you think Elon Musk should have taken any such information to? I mean being a pedophile isn't a crime. Molesting kids is a crime, but being attracted to them itself is not.

He can't have any evidence of someone being a pedophile if that someone doesn't commit a pedophilia related crime...

30 minutes ago, Sniperfox47 said:

But even if you took him as having evidence of child molestation who do you think he should take it to?

 

The police in the UK? They have no Jurisdiction in Thailand...

 

The Thai Police? He lives on tribe land and likely would have partaken with a tribe girl. Since they're self governing and don't have any kinds of laws against that for the most part it's not like he's done anything illegal. There's really nothing they can do about it.

 

The Tribes themselves? If it was true they might smack him upside the head a bit for causing a public kerfluffel but it's not like anything would happen.

 

This lawsuit is a 0 risk proposition for Unsworth. Even if Elon Musk can prove his claim, or even if Unsworth has taken a 12 year old bride like Elon suggested, there's nothing illegal there.

Then why did Musk use his apparent reluctance to sue as "evidence" of his guilt? Why would he be reluctant if the law couldn't touch him? Child spouse trafficking is an international crime as far as I know, if he had solid evidence I'm sure he could get someone on the move. But nope, he used his accusation as ammunition in a twitter cat fight. His credibility on this matter is basically 0, he doesn't deserve the benefit of the doubt until he can prove his claim.

41 minutes ago, voiha said:

He is in the mainstream media eyes. Everything he does and says is a news article.

I don't call people pedophiles in public without evidence, being under the spotlight is not an excuse for being an ass.

42 minutes ago, voiha said:

Underground millionaires/billionaires are doing horrible things, no one bats an eye.

They are smart enough to not do it in public. Nobody is saying musk is worse than those people, stop propping up strawmen.

43 minutes ago, voiha said:

I would say give the man a break. At least he tries to do something productive by not killing the planet or slaving humans as most wealthy people did.

"He could be worse so he should be allowed to defame people at will"

 

please...

47 minutes ago, Ironwhale2009 said:

Would he be sentenced though?

it isn't a criminal trial right?

Fair enough, either way being found guilty in a court (even a civil one) can be a hit on his pride.

1 hour ago, LinuxTek said:

Apollo Lunar lander lands vertically on the moon....wow...1969

McDonnel Douglas DC-X rockets land vertically for DoD in the 1990’s...wow...

Elon Musk...”invents” using rockets for vertically landing....really?

Hang on there, the lunar lander is still on the moon. They had to leave almost everything on the surface to allow for a small piece of the lander to take off again and rejoin with the lunar orbiter. The DC-X never got past the testing phase. SpaceX may not have come up with the idea of vertically landing reusable rockets (even a child could imagine that) but they are the first to make it work well enough for regular use. It doesn't really have much to do with Musk himself anyway... he only put in the money.

1 hour ago, LinuxTek said:

McDonald Douglas DC-X...used ...first stage to vertically land too.

 

Project died when Soviet Union collapsed...Congress couldnt fund it.

If you read the wikipedia page you'll find out that the cost of a new DC-XA would have been 50M, pennies for space program standards, which means the funding excuse was just that - an excuse to abandon the project.

[Sauron]

9 hours ago, Tech_Dreamer said:

having discredited that work as just a company promoting publicity stunt amidst the chaos, kinda stings the same way as calling a guy a pedo.

Maybe to Musk it does, to normal people it shouldn't. I'm sure Unsworth isn't the first to call Musk a charlatan. Musk should have ignored him, but if he really wanted to get back at him he could have said plenty of things that didn't involve calling him a pedophile... he could have said he was incompetent, insecure, irrational and other things that are not a heinous crime for which he has no proof.

[Master Disaster]

4 minutes ago, Sauron said:

Maybe to Musk it does, to normal people it shouldn't. I'm sure Unsworth isn't the first to call Musk a charlatan. Musk should have ignored him, but if he really wanted to get back at him he could have said plenty of things that didn't involve calling him a pedophile... he could have said he was incompetent, insecure, irrational and other things that are not a heinous crime for which he has no proof.

There's an argument to be made, albeit weak and circumstancial, that Musk defamed the entire expat community of Thailand and the Thai government/police force by inferring that people only move to Thailand in order to molest children.

[AlTech]

14 hours ago, SC2Mitch said:

What a fucking idiot he is. Simply. A. IDIOT. 

Who? The Diver or Elon?

Cos I would say both acted inappropriately.

[mr moose]

8 minutes ago, Master Disaster said:

There's an argument to be made, albeit weak and circumstancial, that Musk defamed the entire expat community of Thailand and the Thai government/police force by inferring that people only move to Thailand in order to molest children.

 

 

Elon in the stand:

 

"No your honor, I was not referring to Mr Unsworth,  I was simply insulting Thailand and all the fucking eXpat pedophiles that move there!  It's just a coincidnece that Mr Unsworth happens to be a ped expat who moved there"

[ravenshrike]

14 hours ago, Master Disaster said:

The only chance he has of winning is by proving what he said is true.

Well no. It is unlikely that monetary compensation will occur in the US lawsuit, nor the prior restraint of speech. At least not that won't be appealed and subsequently quashed. The UK lawsuit is a different matter because UK libel laws are stupid.

[Master Disaster]

6 minutes ago, AluminiumTech said:

Who? The Diver or Elon?

Cos I would say both acted inappropriately.

We've covered this multiple times...

 

Telling someone to "stick it where it hurts" is inappropriate and unprofessional however its an insult.

 

Calling someone "pedo guy" is defamation as it contains an accusation of a crime and is likely to cause long term damage to a person's reputation.

 

The 2 things are by no means equal.

[Master Disaster]

3 minutes ago, mr moose said:

 

 

Elon in the stand:

 

"No your honor, I was not referring to Mr Unsworth,  I was simply insulting Thailand and all the fucking eXpat pedophiles that move there!  It's just a coincidnece that Mr Unsworth happens to be a ped expat who moved there"

Not exactly what I had in mind LOL

[Sniperfox47]

26 minutes ago, Sauron said:

He can't have any evidence of someone being a pedophile if that someone doesn't commit a pedophilia related crime...

What the fuck are you even talking about?

 

Damn, Tomoyo Daidouji is such a QTπ, total waifu material.

 

There, now you have evidence of me being a pedophile despite you not having any evidence of me commiting a crime because I haven't committed any crime.

 

Pedophilia is an attraction towards prepubescent individuals. Nothing more or less. The fact that it's commonly conflated with child molestation in the public eye doesn't change that. Being a pedo says nothing about criminal activities.

 

26 minutes ago, Sauron said:

Then why did Musk use his apparent reluctance to sue as "evidence" of his guilt? Why would he be reluctant if the law couldn't touch him? Child spouse trafficking is an international crime as far as I know, if he had solid evidence I'm sure he could get someone on the move. But nope, he used his accusation as ammunition in a twitter cat fight. His credibility on this matter is basically 0, he doesn't deserve the benefit of the doubt until he can prove his claim.

He never used it as evidence. He asked it as a question to deflect the conversation with someone who was intentionally badgering him for a negative reply.

 

Proving that he took a child bride and proving that he *purchased* a child bride are two *very* different things. It is incredibly hard to prove any kind of trade happened when theres no paper trail to follow.

 

I'm not saying that it definitely is the case, I'm just saying you have no more evidence than your claiming Elon Musk does, so wait for the results of the court case.

 

I am no fan of Elon's these days but to assume that the head of a major company that was organizing work with these divers doesn't have any kind of evidence we don't know about from security and background checks on the other teams is kind of asinine and your comments about taking these comments to the authorities are totally out of touch with the realities of that part of the world.

[Master Disaster]

2 minutes ago, Sniperfox47 said:

What the fuck are you even talking about?

 

Damn, Tomoyo Daidouji is such a QTπ, total waifu material.

 

There, now you have evidence of me being a pedophile despite you not having any evidence of me commiting a crime because I haven't committed any crime.

 

Pedophilia is an attraction towards prepubescent individuals. Nothing more or less. The fact that it's commonly conflated with child molestation in the public eye doesn't change that. Being a pedo says nothing about criminal activities.

 

He never used it as evidence. He asked it as a question to deflect the conversation with someone who was intentionally badgering him for a negative reply.

 

Proving that he took a child bride and proving that he *purchased* a child bride are two *very* different things. It is incredibly hard to prove any kind of trade happened when theres no paper trail to follow.

 

I'm not saying that it definitely is the case, I'm just saying you have no more evidence than your claiming Elon Musk does, so wait for the results of the court case.

 

I am no fan of Elon's these days but to assume that the head of a major company that was organizing work with these divers doesn't have any kind of evidence we don't know about from security and background checks on the other teams is kind of asinine and your comments about taking these comments to the authorities are totally out of touch with the realities of that part of the world.

If I Google that name will I end up on any lists?

[Master Disaster]

18 minutes ago, ravenshrike said:

Well no. It is unlikely that monetary compensation will occur in the US lawsuit, nor the prior restraint of speech. At least not that won't be appealed and subsequently quashed. The UK lawsuit is a different matter because UK libel laws are stupid.

In defamation per se cases in almost every state in the US guilt is automatically assumed. The evidence of what was said or printed is present in the case submission and the point of the court case is to establish if the defendant can prove truth or not.

 

If the defendant hadn't of said whatever it was they said they wouldn't be in court explaining it to a judge.

 

Defamation per se is actually one of a tiny few instances where the defendant is guilty until proven innocent.

[Sniperfox47]

21 minutes ago, Master Disaster said:

If I Google that name will I end up on any lists?

It's a random anime Character I picked out of thin air. Specifically shes from Cardcaptors, youre fine. It was just an example to prove a point.

[Trik'Stari]

30 minutes ago, Master Disaster said:

We've covered this multiple times...

 

Telling someone to "stick it where it hurts" is inappropriate and unprofessional however its an insult.

 

Calling someone "pedo guy" is defamation as it contains an accusation of a crime and is likely to cause long term damage to a person's reputation.

 

The 2 things are by no means equal.

His latter actions and statements might change things, but simply referring to someone as a "pedo guy" could easily be argued to be nothing more than an insult by a decent lawyer. It's not just what is being said, it's how it's being said. Context matters.

 

Now, his actions and statements afterwards, now those make his case a lot weaker.

[voiha]

@Sauron

You're getting the wrong idea. I'm not defending nor attacking him. Just expressing in words what is the situation towards him. People are taking Elon as a target mostly because he is rich, he does something and 80% of his life is public via News/Twitter, this kinda puts him besides celebrity status of a pop/rap star rather than entrepreneur.

 

1 hour ago, Sauron said:

I don't call people pedophiles in public without evidence, being under the spotlight is not an excuse for being an ass.

1 hour ago, voiha said:

Where did I claimed he is excused because he could be worse ? 

 

I just said that we all know how mainstream media tries to portrait someone as a bad guy if he is having good intentions - I'm not talking about this situation in particular. 

People trying to picture him as a menace is straight up stupid and laughable. When your relatives are being racist towards other people do you act like this against them or you let it slide because you understand they will reject your criticism because of their beliefs ?

 

59 minutes ago, Sauron said:

They are smart enough to not do it in public. Nobody is saying musk is worse than those people, stop propping up strawmen.

Are you dense ? You're giving credit to killers, mugs etc that they are smart enough to not be public, while one of their task is TO NOT BE PUBLIC ???

Stop arguing about everything, criticism OK as long as it's not in this form. You're straight up hating.

[Master Disaster]

2 minutes ago, Trik'Stari said:

His latter actions and statements might change things, but simply referring to someone as a "pedo guy" could easily be argued to be nothing more than an insult by a decent lawyer. It's not just what is being said, it's how it's being said. Context matters.

 

Now, his actions and statements afterwards, now those make his case a lot weaker.

Sorry but...

22 minutes ago, Master Disaster said:

In defamation per se cases in almost every state in the US guilt is automatically assumed. The evidence of what was said or printed is present in the case submission and the point of the court case is to establish if the defendant can prove truth or not.

 

If the defendant hadn't of said whatever it was they said they wouldn't be in court explaining it to a judge.

 

Defamation per se is actually one of a tiny few instances where the defendant is guilty until proven innocent.

...applies. The very fact he's in court explaining his actions means guilt has already been assumed.

 

The only defense for defamation per se is to prove truth and that is all the courts will be looking at.

[Trik'Stari]

1 minute ago, Master Disaster said:

Sorry but...

...applies. The very fact he's in court explaining his actions means guilt has already been assumed.

 

The only defense for defamation per se is to prove truth and that is all the courts will be looking at.

That doesn't really seem right. The question here isn't whether or not Elon Musk "said" or "did" the thing.

 

Does it not matter at all, whether or not it was said or done in a way that could lead someone to believe it was true? I would think that would be more important in determining whether or not it "damaged" or "defamed" the plaintiff.

[Master Disaster]

1 minute ago, Trik'Stari said:

That doesn't really seem right. The question here isn't whether or not Elon Musk "said" or "did" the thing.

 

Does it not matter at all, whether or not it was said or done in a way that could lead someone to believe it was true? I would think that would be more important in determining whether or not it "damaged" or "defamed" the plaintiff.

Apparently not, and yeah I kind of agree it's a dangerous system.

 

https://injury.findlaw.com/torts-and-personal-injuries/what-is-defamation-per-se-.html

[Trik'Stari]

1 minute ago, Master Disaster said:

Apparently not, and yeah I kind of agree it's a dangerous system.

 

https://injury.findlaw.com/torts-and-personal-injuries/what-is-defamation-per-se-.html

Yeah based on what I'm reading, this sounds like a law that needs to be redone. I'm surprised it's never been taken before SCOTUS, considering both guilt and damages are assumed.

[Master Disaster]

1 minute ago, Trik'Stari said:

Yeah based on what I'm reading, this sounds like a law that needs to be redone. I'm surprised it's never been taken before SCOTUS, considering both guilt and damages are assumed.

My assumption is that it's supposed to act as a preventative law rather than a reactionary one.

[Trik'Stari]

3 minutes ago, Master Disaster said:

My assumption is that it's supposed to act as a preventative law rather than a reactionary one.

I can see that, but it still doesn't make sense to me that damage is assumed. That would require that the statement be made in a way that comes off as factual.

 

 

It would be sad but hilarious if Elon won by proving the statement to be true. Part of me thinks this suit only came after he opened his mouth again, which gives more weight to the plaintiffs claims.

[mr moose]

2 minutes ago, Trik'Stari said:

Yeah based on what I'm reading, this sounds like a law that needs to be redone. I'm surprised it's never been taken before SCOTUS, considering both guilt and damages are assumed.

I guess with the crime being by it's nature a public action that evidences itself, it's not hard to narrow down the possible claims that by their very nature are injurious to the victim.   The crime  itself is evidence it occurred so there is no need to debate if it happened or not, the cl;aims made are know to have X amount of damage so all that's left is for the defendant to make his case and either argue it's true or at least argue it meant very little and for the judge to decide how much damage it caused.

 

Ful disclosure, I am drunk right now and can't and shouldn't be typing but am hoping their are no grammatical errors that make this say something I didn't mean to convey in absolute terms but rather as an observation of the absolute nature of defamation. 

 

P.S thank fuck for autocorrect

p.p.s except when it doesn't know hoe to autorcorrect ful to full and tries to make it fuel...

[Master Disaster]

Just now, Trik'Stari said:

I can see that, but it still doesn't make sense to me that damage is assumed. That would require that the statement be made in a way that comes off as factual.

 

 

It would be sad but hilarious if Elon won by proving the statement to be true. Part of me thinks this suit only came after he opened his mouth again, which gives more weight to the plaintiffs claims.

Oh that's 100% the cause. He publicly apologised to Mr

Unsworth before going on to goad him by asking other users why he didn't sue despite being offered free legal advice. Imo Musk brought this one on himself.