SoylentNews

takyon [soylentnews.org] writes:

Jury sides with Elon Musk in "pedo guy" defamation case [arstechnica.com]

A Los Angeles federal jury has found Elon Musk not liable for defamation in a lawsuit brought by British caver Vernon Unsworth. Musk dubbed Unsworth a "pedo guy" in a tweet last year, but argued in court that he meant this as a generic insult—not as an accusation that Unsworth was a pedophile.

"My faith in humanity is restored," Musk reportedly said [twitter.com] on his way out of court.

Musk and Unsworth have been trading insults since last July, when Unsworth mocked a miniature submarine SpaceX engineers created [arstechnica.com] to help rescue a dozen boys trapped in a cave in Thailand (it didn't arrive in time to be useful). In an interview with CNN, Unsworth said that Musk should "stick his submarine where it hurts."

Musk responded with a tweet labeling Unsworth a "pedo guy" and vowing to prove that the submarine would have been able to squeeze through the narrowest passages in the cave.

Musk's defamation win may reset legal landscape for social media [reuters.com]

The victory by Tesla Inc's outspoken chief executive over a Twitter message describing a British cave explorer as "pedo guy" has raised the bar for what amounts to libel online, according to some legal experts.

Musk defended his comments as trivial taunts made on a social media platform that he argued everyone views as a world of unfiltered opinion, which is protected as free speech, rather than statements of fact.

"I think this verdict reflects that there is a feeling that internet tweets and chats are more like casual conversation whether you call it opinion or rhetoric or hyperbole and should not be punished in a lawsuit," said Chip Babcock, a lawyer who defends against defamation lawsuits.

Several other attorneys who specialize in defamation cases privately expressed surprise at the outcome of what they viewed as a strong case for the cave explorer, Vernon Unsworth. They attributed it to Musk's fame and the perceived youthfulness of the jury.

But they also agreed it would shift the legal landscape, undercutting the cases that would have seemed viable before the trial while defendants would use it to try to reduce possible settlement values.

Original Submission