Musk, SEC Settle Legal Fight over His Tweets About Tesla
bloomberg.com
bloomberg.com
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-04-26/musk-must...
I'm curious what specific damages the person is claiming against his livelihood as a result of an insulting tweet he received in response to his own first initiated insult towards the defendant...
In the days of old. Over Twitter, it can be a lot easier. It's not only public, it's a written record.
I'm curious what specific damages the person is claiming against his livelihood as a result of a tweet...
Certain subject areas are considered per se defamation in many jurisdictions. You don't have to prove the damages. The damage is assumed. Pedophilia is one such subject area.
Basically, Musk acts like someone who doesn't know much about the law.
Musk is going to get off with slap on the wrist (relatively), with damages due of single digit millions at most. De minimis.
Rather than Musk's intention was actually proposing he is a pedophile because of his involvement in x... Which would be far easier for the 'victim' to disprove as a false statement and connected to specific work and specific losses (ie, his volunteer work which he draws emotional happiness) the person might then loose out on said work in the future because he was falsely labeled a pedophile.
The latter situation is usually how it'd have to work. Something concrete and specific.
Otherwise it's perfectly legally to insult people on the Internet and hurt their feelings.
In Texas, the standard is, "How would the statement be perceived by an average, reasonable person?" Could the statement be reasonably interpreted as a straight-up accusation of pedophilia? I don't think Musk is safe in any jurisdiction.
Which would be far easier for the 'victim' to disprove as a false statement
Not how it works. The plaintiff doesn't have to prove anything. The burden of proof is on the defendant (the one who said the thing) and being able to show the statement is true is an automatic defense.
The latter situation is usually how it'd have to work. Something concrete and specific.
For the particular insult/statement, it doesn't work that way. It's defamation per se. It's assumed to be damaging.
Otherwise it's perfectly legally to insult people on the Internet and hurt their feelings.
Defamation is one of the things you can't do.
It wasn't so much publicized, but it was not just a random insult. He was making a specific accusation, and claimed to have specific reasons for believing it was true. Most news sources didn't provide everything he said, and that's probably a mercy, but at some point more context was in an article I happened to run across.
So either it is true, or it was defamation, based on either malice or paranoia. Saying he didn't mean it literally just means you're ignorant of what he said.
I imagine Elon will be spinning hard to settle this...eventually. Not before his ego is suppressed, though, and that might get noisy. He's like Trump that way: nobody can tell him anything, he's Mr. Awesome. With any justice, the plaintiff won't entertain any settlement talks and go for the jury verdict.
Then congress can pass a rule that all of a presidents tweets need to go via white house council. Not that that would make much of a difference...
That’s healthy.
As for Musk’s SEC violations, he chose to run a publicly traded company, nobody put a gun to his head. He was already wealthy, he decided that the upside of turbocharging the electric car revolution and the exploration of space were worth the constraints of dealing with regulatory bodies.
His choice, his consequences. We aren’t talking about him being fined for saying that he thinks his country’s Dear Leader looks like a deflated pumpkin. Nobody should live in fear of saying that.
The regulatory bodies don't exactly come out looking awesome in the above sentence.
Yes there should be. In other times, it was being an ordinary private citizen of the United States.
When what’s on your mind are things like baseless accusations of pedophilia, for example, you ought to be afraid of “saying the wrong thing.”
"Speaking your mind" isn't exactly the same thing as engaging in defamation.
There was never such a time. Never, in the history of the United States, was it ever common for "ordinary private citizens" to speak their mind without fear of consequence. American culture, while giving lip-service to freedom of speech, has always punished those who venture to criticize the status quo.
>"Speaking your mind" isn't exactly the same thing as engaging in defamation.
Of course it is. If Elon Musk, or anyone, should be able to speak their mind without fear of consequence, that implies the freedom to defame people without fear of legal consequence.
False. Me in graduate school in the 90's in South Carolina. My professor friend in the 90's just after she got tenure.
American culture, while giving lip-service to freedom of speech, has always punished those who venture to criticize the status quo.
No. Certain subsets/factions of this society have done that. There are many Americans who gave far more than lip-service to freedom of speech. My father was one such person. Many, many people in this society have been like that. It's in the past several years, that the mainstream media as a faction has turned against this idea. In my youth, they were among the loudest proponents.
When I was young, it was the hostile Moral Majority types who were against freedom of speech. It always seems to be moralist authoritarians who claim they're not moralist authoritarians.
Ok. I'll see your data set of two and raise you African Americans, communists, atheists, feminists, Jews, Muslims, war protesters, pro-gun, anti-gun, pro-life, pro-choice, etc. American history is full of examples of ordinary private citizens meeting consequences for their speech, sometimes minor, sometimes violent.
That you, personally, and one person you know may have been able to transgress some undefined social or political norms without consequence doesn't really prove anything, except perhaps that you haven't really transgressed anything hard enough for anyone to care.
>No. Certain subsets/factions of this society have done that.
Society is nothing but subsets and factions. There has always been a limit to what people within a community will tolerate, even in the name of "freedom of speech."
My friend is an atheist, feminist, and ethnically Jewish. My wife's father is an ardent Communist.
American history is full of examples of ordinary private citizens meeting consequences for their speech, sometimes minor, sometimes violent.
American history is full of times and places where people of different views would be accepted.
There has always been a limit to what people within a community will tolerate, even in the name of "freedom of speech."
There is a big difference between today and the 90's. There is far less tolerance and actual discourse today.
It used to be a widespread virtue for people to cite "freedom of speech," let people say their piece,then just go on with your own life. The people who were going around trying to persecute others were bigots trying to exclude Jews and Asians from their clubs. (Happened to my family.) The people who were going around to people private lives with toxic behavior justified by their beliefs were people like the Klan and the Westboro Baptist church.
Now, people proclaim as if it's "mainstream," that it's a virtue to give people "consequences" and engage in the same kind of impingement on private lives, exclusion, and active persecution those bigots once engaged in, then call it "justice."
It's quite a huge difference in society. Such active persecution used to be the sole province of widely recognized fringe bigots. Now, it's supported by politicians at the national level and it's claimed by people who purport to be mainstream and normal.
It's no longer a live and let live society. We should be suspicious of those who would engage in an Orwellian retcon of the past, and pretend it was always so.
Before that, MLK told America uncomfortable truths. He was considered a dangerous threat to America and eventually assassinated.
Athletes who raised fists or kneeled have been ostracized, whether in 1968 or 2018, fifty years later.
This idea of absolute freedom of speech is something that has only ever been for privileged people, people who have tenure, or powerful interests protecting them.
Everyone else has had to suffer the consequences, up to and including losing their lives. And this is not some nee phenomenon foisted upon America by SJWs in the 2010s and moralizing Christians in the 1980s.
It has always been a place where there is one rule for the powerful, and another rule for the oppressed.
I'm not talking about (the obvious strawman) of absolute freedom of speech even across all of society down to the last opinion. I'm just talking about a live and let live society.
And this is not some new phenomenon foisted upon America by SJWs in the 2010s and moralizing Christians in the 1980s.
Right. It's the same old phenomenon, foisted upon us by moralizing Christians in the 1980s and moralizing SJWs in the 2010s.
Nobody is stopping him from speaking his mind, he can't talk about his company in certain ways without checking from a lawyer from his company because it affects the other shareholders.
None of this seems to be about "speaking your mind".
> Second thought, are you even a successful person
Elon Musk is by almost any definition a successful person. He has tried to do large things and succeeded.
He is also exceptionally wealthy, which is a simple answer to "what's the point of ...".
Nobody is saying that Elon Musk can't talk about whatever he wants. The lawsuit is only that publicly-traded corporations can't mislead investors. I think that's fair.
I get it. He's super smart. CEO of huge companies. That doesn't mean he can't have fun, be goofy, and tweet for lulz.
There's a very big difference between negative positions and positive "why shouldn't they be able to" defences...
The risks Musk is willing to take and his private investors and coworkers tolerance for that is their own voluntary choices to make.
You are not the sole person in your company, don't act like you are if you need other peoples' hands and other people's money to make it run.
This is my assumption, but I believe at some point he realized life is too short to be all uptight all the time. That as long as you focus on stuff that's really important. You can still have fun and make jokes.
But also, above a certain level you just get sued all the damn time and stop caring so much.
Yes, he earns money with the T. Name ( ongoing - i think revenue will slide a lot in 2 years) and yes, the presidency is not finished yet ( = also ongoing and I expect lawsuits after it).
Also, the Apprentice was self produced ( fake it till you make it) and I wouldn't know what other success he could have had. Burning bridges for the US and self-enrichment ( cfr. ZTE and Ivanka T. In China) doesn't seem very respectful to me.
Ps. Former Foursquare had analytics that the T. Named buildings had a lot less visitors.
No money was involved for sure ;) - https://youtu.be/jkghtyxZ6rc
He makes the rest up as he goes.
But I'm not really sure what else. Renting out his name is actually based on the Trump Tower.
Replicating the same success with casinos and hotels was a stock market disaster.
Ps. Yes, he said everything went great to stock market analysts. But he still went broke 2 times shortly after.
And everyone in real estate got hit by the crash then, not just Trump.
Also, the market wasn't plummeting when he failed. Get your facts straight.
Who even says he's a billionaire ( net worth)? Don't believe everything he says.
Let see his taxes. Or it was a smart move and he didn't lie ( which I doubt) or he's living on borrowed money and gets away with it for now.
Don't forget, his money-maker that still works is his name. If you don't believe that anymore, he's in deep trouble business-wise ( banks too since the property value would decline). He has every motive for dressing things up.
Ps. I'm a billionaire 2, if I can borrow a billion. Doesn't mean I would be a success though.
> At the time, three individuals with direct knowledge of Trump's finances told reporter Timothy L. O'Brien that Trump's actual net worth was between $150 and $250 million, though Trump then publicly claimed a net worth of $5 to $6 billion.[4]
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wealth_of_Donald_Trump
Ps 2. Investigation of the Times suggests even 1 billion of his parents through tax schemes. Way more then your "couple of million"
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/10/02/us/politics/d...
You don't need a tax return to know someone's net worth.
The $413 million number is from a NYT article adjusting the supposed $60 million loan from his Father for inflation. Even with the best savings account rates you wouldn't get to a billion. Not even close to the 3 billion he's valued at.
Sure, go try to borrow a billion dollars and report back. There's no denying Trump became successful. He made himself a billionaire. You don't need a tax return to verify that.
Failed ventures doesn't make you a failure, especially if you have had successful ventures. Even more so if you go on to become President.
The same set of buildings would be sold off over the next decade for more than 16 times that amount.
Here's a > 600 million of his daddy money outside of the 413 million. = Billionaire
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/10/02/us/politics/d...
Ps. You should have a deeper dive into his net worth. Where Trump said the Trump name is worth 3 billion, others say it's 100-300 million. Forbes link with Trump's real estate is mostly acquired by inheritance ( selling and buying something else is still the same money)
PS2. Trump would have been much richer, if he just put it in a pension fund.
It's all about perspective.
This Bloomberg articles goes into our hypothetical discussion. Basically it concludes that if he was to time the stock market margins perfectly he would have made out a bit better in the long run. But that's with great timing of the market, which is hard. Also anyone will say you need to diversify your portfolio, not just dump it all in index funds.
Then you have to factor in passion. Trump loves real-estate, why just invest money in the S&P 500 and hope you play all your cards right when you have a passion in a different investment strategy?
"The simplest version of the comparison seems to be that if Trump had taken his $40 million inheritance from his father in 1974, converted it into cash, and invested it in the S&P 500, reinvesting all dividends and spending no money along the way, he'd have about $2.3 billion or so today, depending on how you do the math. Bloomberg computes his actual net worth as $2.9 billion, so he's modestly outperformed the S&P over his career, again depending on how you do the math."
So he modestly outperformed a typical investment strategy, built a brand for himself, and did what he loves. I'd call that winning.
Also an important tidbit from the article:
"That, however, understates his performance. For one thing, if he put all his money in index funds and reinvested all the dividends for 41 years, he'd be dead, because you can't buy food with reinvested dividends. As an investing strategy you can't beat compound returns, but as a strategy for life food has key diversification benefits. Also I feel like Trump has unusually high consumption expenses? For instance, to choose one item at random, I gather that he is currently funding his own campaign for president. That would also eat into his returns."
And guessing that he funds it himselve is a big if.
The only thing I believe is the the loan has been paid back with the tax reductions, he didn't had to pay it himselve.
What are you talking about? His father gave him a $14-60 million dollar loan depending on who you ask.
If you're talking about the real estate Trump's family received after his father's death, that was around 2004, but you're conflating that with the initial speculation that he should have put that in the stock market. That would have been a VERY bad move as the stock market crashed in 2008.
EDIT: I hit my posting limit apparently. To your reply, you're simply wrong.
Overall he performed better in the long run. There were periods of time where he could have performed better in index funds, but that would require good timing and shifting of funds. It's not exactly easy to liquidate real estate and shift it to index funds either.
Here's the article without a paywall (I didn't receive one though) https://outline.com/4FNxkP
I'm not sure how you're calculating it differently than Bloomberg is, but their numbers add up.
EDIT2: Yes his father died in 1999, but his liquid assets were received by his children in 2004. It takes awhile to liquidate real estate. Either way, my point still stands.
$20 million was split between the Trump children, which they sold off for around $500 million (split equally). That's furthering the argument that real estate is a good investment, you wouldn't get those returns in a low-risk index fund. Especially with the impending 2008 crash.
EDIT3: You stopped reading after the 3rd paragraph that has nothing to do with the discussion? The article makes the calculation for the S&P 500 investment strategy and compares it to his net worth, which Bloomberg calculated to be lower than Forbes...
LASTEDIT: You don't need a tax return to determine someone's net worth. Most people don't release their tax returns. In fact a tax return won't tell you enough information alone to determine someone's net worth.
Read my previous one about the tax-scheme ( with source) and redo the calculations. Also, you mention a loan and I mention inheritance.
So he seriously underperformed the S&P 500 all of the sudden.
Edit: his father died in 1999
Edit 2: One particularly interesting fact is that the Trump Organization, according to its chief financial officer, made a profit last year of somewhere between $275 million and $325 million, on $605 million of revenue. That's pretty good!
Stopped reading after this. It's not based on facts, but according to the Trump organization, which... Are not facts. I only trust numbers ( eg. Tax filings) to see someone's performance.
Let's let this rest ( no use / benefit for this discussion) + I'm going out.
Last edit: like I mentioned else, I want to see tax filings to see if I'm correct and if he really is "successful", all the rest is guessing.
Don't need to spell it out to the critizers I think ... :)
Sounds like you're letting your emotions get the best of you.
Please read. I already handled your observation.
I'm saying that it ain't over untill the fat lady sings.
If he gets lawsuited as hell ( and loses) and all his loyalists starts to abandon him or if the business of renting out his name also takes a serious decline after his presidency. Or even jail-time depending on what happens.
I consider it a failure, yes.
I also think they the people he's putting in the chair, aren't loyal to him ( no, not the Russians story. Talking about the tea party)
Ps. Trump wanted to be president the last 20 years. So that part worked yes. To be determined of it was a smart move ( eg. The Simpsons prediction 16 years ago wasn't made from thin air)
He wanted to be president, so the T. Name would benefit, so he could earn more money. That's what's troubling me.
I don't hate Trump or anything. I just think he's unworthy for presidency. Those are totally different things and in the other comments, I also have facts-based arguments which you seem to lack.
If I fail, let it be like Trump.
I'm not sure if we know the entire story.
To be honest, his taxes would prove that I'm right or wrong.
If he had profits and if he isn't living on borrowed money that much. Kudus to him, very well played.
But my gut says otherwise. I think time will tell.
But for now, I think Daddy's money and 1 success ( T. Tower) with a couple of ongoing things derived from that 1 success 30 years ago ( Name licensing mostly, presidency was a business move to make it more popular, it seemed to have failed)
Your personal creed should be: I wished my dad would have a lot of money ( 230 million $) for me to invest for over 50 years ;)
Ps. If you question where the money came from. It's paid back with the tax reform that he pushed. Everyone lost except the top 1%. He still knows successful people, although he isn't one.
Tesla's Board is also elected by its shareholders, many of whom are unaffiliated with Elon Musk.
https://www.thestreet.com/investing/stocks/how-elon-musk-con...
Somehow these normal people I know are able to hold themselves to a higher standard.
Standards mean something until they don’t. People are fragile, and not always handled with care. If you’re surprised by these sorts of “deviations from the norm”, I assure you they exist and are more frequent than your social circle would lead you to believe.