I’m honestly surprised. From some of Musk’s comments beyond the tweets it seemed to me like he was very interested in destroying the diver’s reputation with a fiction. Maybe the jury heard...
I’m honestly surprised. From some of Musk’s comments beyond the tweets it seemed to me like he was very interested in destroying the diver’s reputation with a fiction. Maybe the jury heard something different.
Incorrect, the top comment in the /r/news thread on Reddit on the legal reasoning regarding defamation is misinformation. The jury found for Musk because they didn't think a reasonable person...
Unsworth alleged actual damages in court--he didn't come into court with no proof of damages. The jury did not decide that issue. He also asked for $150 million in punitive damages in addition to actual damages, which would be 0.6329% of Elon Musk's net worth, equivalent to $615.81 for the median U.S. household.
That's the spin, but one could just as easily criticize the verdict as having occurred because the jury didn't know how Twitter works. There is no distinction in the law between having a news...
That's the spin, but one could just as easily criticize the verdict as having occurred because the jury didn't know how Twitter works. There is no distinction in the law between having a news conference to accuse the guy of pedophilia and Tweeting it out to millions of people.
I suspect the jury didn't understand how the Tweets Musk responded to were sufficient context to easily identify Unsworth (what they're calling the "subtweet defense" now). After all, virtually everyone who was aware of Musk's comments did actually know they were about Unsworth. So it seems pretty odd for the jury to find that a reasonable person wouldn't infer they were about him when in reality, everyone who knew about them did actually make that connection.
Just because someone's an attorney doesn't mean they are familiar with how Twitter works. I'd also like to highlight how incredibly unusual it is for an attorney to serve on a jury--they are...
Just because someone's an attorney doesn't mean they are familiar with how Twitter works. I'd also like to highlight how incredibly unusual it is for an attorney to serve on a jury--they are usually voir dire'd out due to the risk other jurors will unduly defer to their opinions.
Clearly, that is what they determined: that a reasonable person wouldn't know from the Tweets that they were about Unsworth. That's a pretty strange result given the fact that anyone paying attention to the news did actually know that they were about Unsworth, since he was being hailed at the time in international news as the one who "saved the kids."
I never said that someone who doesn't use Twitter can't understand how it works. I said I suspect the jury in this case doesn't understand how subtweeting multiple times (without specifically...
I never said that someone who doesn't use Twitter can't understand how it works. I said I suspect the jury in this case doesn't understand how subtweeting multiple times (without specifically naming him) like Elon did lends enough context to identify Unsworth.
I’m honestly surprised. From some of Musk’s comments beyond the tweets it seemed to me like he was very interested in destroying the diver’s reputation with a fiction. Maybe the jury heard something different.
Incorrect, the top comment in the /r/news thread on Reddit on the legal reasoning regarding defamation is misinformation. The jury found for Musk because they didn't think a reasonable person could infer that the Tweets were about Unsworth. Not because he couldn't prove damages.
Unsworth alleged actual damages in court--he didn't come into court with no proof of damages. The jury did not decide that issue. He also asked for $150 million in punitive damages in addition to actual damages, which would be 0.6329% of Elon Musk's net worth, equivalent to $615.81 for the median U.S. household.
That's the spin, but one could just as easily criticize the verdict as having occurred because the jury didn't know how Twitter works. There is no distinction in the law between having a news conference to accuse the guy of pedophilia and Tweeting it out to millions of people.
I suspect the jury didn't understand how the Tweets Musk responded to were sufficient context to easily identify Unsworth (what they're calling the "subtweet defense" now). After all, virtually everyone who was aware of Musk's comments did actually know they were about Unsworth. So it seems pretty odd for the jury to find that a reasonable person wouldn't infer they were about him when in reality, everyone who knew about them did actually make that connection.
Just because someone's an attorney doesn't mean they are familiar with how Twitter works. I'd also like to highlight how incredibly unusual it is for an attorney to serve on a jury--they are usually voir dire'd out due to the risk other jurors will unduly defer to their opinions.
Clearly, that is what they determined: that a reasonable person wouldn't know from the Tweets that they were about Unsworth. That's a pretty strange result given the fact that anyone paying attention to the news did actually know that they were about Unsworth, since he was being hailed at the time in international news as the one who "saved the kids."
I never said that someone who doesn't use Twitter can't understand how it works. I said I suspect the jury in this case doesn't understand how subtweeting multiple times (without specifically naming him) like Elon did lends enough context to identify Unsworth.
I feel like that should still count as libel but IANAL
Prince Andrew needs an air ambulance to the nearest burn center.