Elon Musk’s ‘pedo guy’ defamation case is going to trial
techcrunch.com
techcrunch.com
The difference between a standard defamation (defamation per quod) and defamation per se, is that a defamation per se is something that is so harmful that the plaintiff does not need to prove actual damages.
"Traditionally, there have been four general categories of untrue statements presumed to be harmful to one's reputation and therefore actionable as an injury claim. Typically, if the statements don't fall into one of these categories, the plaintiff is required to prove their damages. If it does fall into one of these categories, damages are usually presumed.
The four general categories are:
Indications that a person was involved in criminal activity
Indications that a person had a "loathsome," contagious or infectious disease
Indications that a person was unchaste or engaged in sexual misconduct
Indications that a person was involved in behavior incompatible with the proper conduct of his business, trade or profession"[1]
I know that a lot of people here have a lot of respect for Elon, but come on - unless he has some undisclosed information of which everyone else is ignorant, it seems pretty clear that he did defame this guy.
The fact that his lawyers' argument is essentially "you can't defame someone on Twitter" also seems fairly desperate IMO.
[1]: https://injury.findlaw.com/torts-and-personal-injuries/what-...
Thank you. Appreciated.
Actually, I think it potentially hits all four:
Pedophilic acts are generally crimes, and the totality of the circumstances makes it reasonable to conclude that Musk meant that acts, not just orientation, is involved, meeting the first form of per se defamation.
Pedophilia is a diagnosable mental condition, and one which brings significant social disapprobation; mental disorders have in some cases been held as being “loathsome” diseases. To the extent that Musk's claim can be viewed as including (even if not limited to) a claim of pedophilia in the sense of the disorder, it fits the second category.
Pedophilic acts are also sexual misconduct as well as crimes, so it fits the third category for much the same reason as the first.
Accusing a professional cave diver currently employed as such in a rescue of children of being an active pedophile certainly seems like it is accusing them of something incompatible with their business, trade, or profession.
(Huh, this case could become a new textbook example of per se defamation.)
Sure. he's musk. he's also (in my personal opinion) behaving like a dickwad. Man up, say sorry and pay restitution.
> "Musk’s lawyers argued that statements on the internet, and more specifically on unmoderated forums like Twitter, are presumptively opinion, not objective fact."
As much as I think Elon should shut up, get off Twitter and stop making a fool of himself, I have to agree with his lawyers here. I don't see a crime.
Edit: see the comment about per se defamation in another thread, as I wasn't aware of that legal distinction but it's the same idea. I don't believe "douchebag" meets that definition, but pedo guy is border-line at best.
He made a specific claim misrepresenting the guy. A claim in which he could request relief (for instance: employers not hiring him because he was rumored to be a pedo)
He didn't say 'cave guy looks like a pedo', he literally called him a 'pedo guy' which most people would think 'oh, maybe this is a person with a history of abusing children'.
In the least if it makes a someone reading that consider that the plaintiff is actually a pedo or at least has to stop to research it.... that seems fairly defamatory.
Anyone can sue anyone for anything, but actionable defamation has a fairly narrow definition in the US, largely as a result of the First Amendment, and to survive the preliminary phases of legal action there must be at least an allegation with evidence proposed to be presented that could reasonably meet the definition.
> I'm just trying to figure out why Elon is in so much trouble over this.
Because people aren't, legally, free to publish harmful lies about others, and Musk stands credibly accused of doing that.
> He isn't an elected official or anything.
How is that even relevant? (Were he a public official, and the statement was related to his execution of public duties, he'd probably be in less, not more, legal danger because of governmental immunities.)
> Is he not allowed to call people names for some reason?
He didn’t just call someone names. He both publicly offered a bet that the label would prove to be factually accurate and followed the general accusation with detailed and specific supporting allegations of sexual predation on children, which were presented to a reporter.
> I once called my friend a douchebag, so can he sue me for defamation?
Since it is impossible for a human to be a literal douchebag, it is impossible for that to be construed as a fact claim. It is quite possible for a human to be a pedophile, and Musk’s conduct can (at a minimum) reasonably be seen as indicating that he meant the accusation to be treated as literal fact, not generic name calling.
> I have to agree with his lawyers here. I don't see a crime.
He's not accused of a crime; were he accused of a crime, it would be by a public prosecutor, not a private litigant. But if Musk's lawyer’s “Twitter is not for fact claims but only opinion puffery that no one takes seriously” argument had any real chance of being taken seriously by a court, he'd never have settled with the SEC (and then done so again when accused of breaking the first settlement) over his problem of tweeting about Tesla.
It's like Musk is dedicated to getting in trouble in every domain of law in which it is possible to get in trouble for improper fact claims, all by way of Twitter.
Pedophile is very specific (Musk even pushed his luck by suggesting to journalists that they investigate his claims) and I can't think of a worse thing in today's world.
Example: "Son of a wh*re" is an insult and probably not actionable. "Your mom, named Jane Doe, did this and that at this hotel with x guys" is very different.
To win a U.S. defamation lawsuit, the plaintiff, at the very least, must prove that the defendant:
Published or otherwise broadcast an unprivileged, false statement of fact about the plaintiff; Caused material harm to the plaintiff by publishing or broadcasting said false statement of fact; Acted either negligently or with actual malice;
Free Speech Vs Defamation:
In the United States, federal defamation law is closely tied to the First Amendment. As a result, federal slander and libel laws are more defendant-friendly in the U.S. than those in common law countries, like the U.K. and Canada. In short, opinion is not considered defamation in the U.S. That being said, false statements of fact that harm the reputation of an individual or business, aren't protected under Constitutional Free Speech provisions."
Actual malice is the standard of proof public figures must satisfy to win a defamation lawsuit.
Essentially, actual malice is present when a defendant knowingly pubishes or broadcasts a false statement of fact.
Reckless disregard for the truth amounts to actual malice in some jurisdictions."
Elon is fighting this because he can, but even his lawyer would know it's a loser. OTOH, it's probably a fun case for the lawyer, like the cases assigned in law school that are designed to be losers but you make it a personal challenge to see how far you can take it. Plus he's getting paid well.
Some statements are naturally and obviously harmful; they are considered per se defamatory.
In defamation per se claims, plaintiffs don't have to prove injury because the harm to is presumed.
For example, falsely calling someone a criminal would fall under the per se umbrella."
In this context, I am wondering about its usage w.r.t. the email to buzzfeed, is that considered "publishing".
If not, I would have thought then that the libel would be on buzzfeed side, for publishing unsubstantiated rumors. At the very least, the act of "publishing" was performed by buzzfeed, even if they had caveat with "Musk emailed this to us..." .
With respect to Musk tweets, no doubts there, he clearly "published".
Publishing for purpose of defamation is communicating the message to another person by any means.
> If not, I would have thought then that the libel would be on buzzfeed side, for publishing unsubstantiated rumors
BuzzFeed published true facts, to wit, that Elon Musk had mailed them certain claims. Falsity being a required element of defamation (whether libel or slander), their publication can not be defamatory.
> if they had caveat with "Musk emailed this to us..." .
That's not a caveat, it indicates a completely different fact claim; the claim “Joe said X did Y” is a distinct fact claim from the claim “X did Y”.
So, even if buzzfeed had not published to their website, Musk had already published to buzzfeed. Interesting !
2. Everything else aside, I remember seeing the narrow squeezes, and remember seeing the submarine. That was never going to work.
What a ridiculous waste of tax payers money if this is funded by them.