[misslibby]

I've never been awarded any money because somebody said something to me I didn't like.

Yes words can have consequences. Let's take politics, some parties get elected based on their words, and then implement policies that are harmful to me. I still never got any kind of compensation for that kind of thing.

How much money should ehticalsmacker be awarded from you, because you not thinking much of his comment hurt his feelings?

[jszymborski]

When you facetiously equate my comment with the harm perpetuated by someone actively racially discriminating against someone, do you expect me to take your argument in good faith?

I'm not going to argue you with you.

[johngladtj]

The only reason you think it's facetious is because you disagree with his specific point

[jszymborski]

Agreed, I think racism is bad.

[ngruhn]

Maybe not ”equate“. Let’s say it’s 10.000 times less harmful. 3M/10k = 300. You owe that man 300 bucks.

[eesmith]

Your math doesn't work because the situations are incomparable.

jszymborski comments did not break the law.

Tesla violations of employment laws regarding a hostile work environment did break the law.

Two different juries decided that Tesla broke the law, and that punitive damages were needed to deter that behavior in the future.

What law is jszymborski breaking? What court is applicable? None.

[misslibby]

Just because something is a law, doesn't imply it is good or justified.

[eesmith]

Perhaps you can explain the relevancy of your comment?

Your comment suggests you think financial payment to an HN user with hurt feelings due to another user "not thinking much of his comment" is either good or justified.

I find that hard to believe.

On the other hand, decades ago the US decided that it's neither good nor justified to have a hostile work environment - something I agree with - and put laws and systems into place to enforce that belief.

That's what the lawsuit is about.

Yet I also find it hard to believe you support a hostile work environment.

That makes your comment seen like neither here nor there.

[misslibby]

Your argument was that "so and so did break the law". I answered that just because something is a law, it isn't good or correct. If you don't see the relevancy, I don't know what else to tell you.

I don't think people should pay other users because of their comments. On the contrary, my argument was that they shouldn't have to pay.

As for hostile work environments, my opinion is that people should simply quit their jobs if they are unhappy with their work environment. I don't think governments should interfere with how companies conduct their business.

I even think racism should be legal. Don't get me wrong - I don't like racism. But the government shouldn't be allowed to tell people who they have to like or dislike. If somebody doesn't want to work with somebody else because they don't like their nose or whatever, it should be in their rights to refuse to work with them. In general, people should be allowed to do with their money as they please, so also to pay for work who they want.

One thing I heard is that the guy in question here even tried to get a relative a position at Tesla, which seems odd if he thought the work environment was so bad. Not sure if that is true, though.

[saiya-jin]

How can you judge what is harmful to me? You personally are no general metric to all mankind. In fact, what you just wrote made me suicidal now since your words hurt me very badly and triggered massive childhood trauma which I barely survived but haven't told about to anybody due to shame. Your words hurt me that much. You can't question it, since you have no idea what is happening on my side. If you try to diminish the harm you have already done, you are causing me even more harm.

To compensate this harm, I am suing you for 3 billions $$ + legal fees, since I know you are not poor and come to HN. My lawyers will contact you.

And there you go, you just did exactly what you criticize on others and put yourself above somebody else. Hell, that's another trauma for me, now its 4 billions since I have panic attack now from your toxic posts.

[shadowgovt]

Of course, none of that is actually going to happen, there is no general legal basis for "Someone owes me money because they said a thing that made me sad online in a debate website I voluntarily visit in my leisure time for (one assumes) entertainment or educational value," and your explanation of why it would happen indicates massive ignorance of the legal framework relevant to this thread topic.

I always find it interesting when people who are willing to accept the arbitrariness of the LISP interpreter or JavaScript's market dominance or the C++ curiously recurring template pattern get shocked or surprised that the United States' framework of law and legal precedent is arbitrary and path-dependent and does not conform to their (also arbitrary and path-dependent) sense of fairness.

[misslibby]

People fret about the programming languages they use all the time...

[eesmith]

That's irrelevant. The HN comment forum is not government by equal opportunity employment law.

The definition of a hostile work environment is not "said something to me I didn't like". Quoting the EEOC at https://www.archives.gov/files/eeo/policy/facts-about-workpl... :

"... the anti-discrimination statutes are not a general civility code, Federal law does not prohibit simple teasing, off-hand comments, or isolated incidents that are not extremely serious. Rather, the conduct must be so objectively offensive as to alter the conditions of the individual’s employment."

The juries - in two different trials! - have determined that the conduct at Tesla meets that threshold.

Tesla is legally obligated to prevent workplace harassment, and respond to complaints about harassment. They did not do so. Punitive damages for Tesla's illegal behavior form the large part of the awarded amount.

[misslibby]

Musk has claimed on Twitter that Tesla wasn't allowed to present new evidence, and that the fine would have been 0 with the new evidence. But he says the jury did the best with the given evidence and he respects their decision.

I think there is more to the story than CNN reports, also, just because something has been made into a law, it isn't beyond discussion or criticism. There are many bad laws in existence.

[bigbillheck]

Musk claims lots of things on Twitter that aren't true.

[misslibby]

Such as?

[shadowgovt]

I recommend doing one's own research on this topic; the well is quite deep. Musk's greatest talent is salesmanship; that sometimes divorces from the truth.

This can get you started: https://news.sky.com/story/elon-musks-lies-about-tesla-on-tw...

[misslibby]

Doesn't sound like such a clear cut case. Has the court decided yet?

[eesmith]

What lousy lawyers Tesla must have. There were TWO jury trials, and the plaintiff was successful in BOTH of them.

There are also many companies with illegally discriminatory workplace environments in existence.

Just because "pedo guy" Musk claims something doesn't mean it's beyond criticism.

There's always more than what's reported in the news. It's not like we're going to read the court transcripts.

Please be specific about what's wrong with this law, otherwise it seems like you are blowing smoke to minimize Tesla's blame.

I'll quote from the first opinion at https://casetext.com/case/diaz-v-tesla-inc-4 as a starting point:

> The jury heard that the Tesla factory was saturated with racism. Diaz faced frequent racial abuse, including the N-word and other slurs. Other employees harassed him. His supervisors, and Tesla's broader management structure, did little or nothing to respond. And supervisors even joined in on the abuse, one going so far as to threaten Diaz and draw a racist caricature near his workstation. ...

> On Diaz's second day of work, Diaz saw the N-word scratched into a bathroom stall. Id. at 401:6-12. Over the course of his employment, more racist bathroom graffiti was added. Id. at 403:5-15. He encountered swastikas and the phrase “death to all [N-words].” ...

> The jury, in special verdicts, found that: (1) Tesla subjected Diaz to a racially hostile work environment, (2) Tesla was a joint employer of Diaz, (3) Diaz was subject to a hostile work environment caused by a supervisor, (4) Diaz was subject to a hostile work environment caused by a non-immediate supervisor or co-worker, (5) Tesla committed a civil rights violation in a contractual relationship, (6) Tesla failed to take all reasonable steps necessary to prevent Diaz from being subject to racial harassment, and (7) Tesla negligently supervised or negligently continued to employ Ramon Martinez and that action harmed Diaz. ...

> The weight of the evidence is against Tesla's minimization of Diaz's emotional and psychological harm. Diaz testified about the severe consequences he experienced during his time at the factory. See supra Background, Section II.E. Jones similarly testified about the effects on her father. Id. And his psychological expert confirmed all of this, including by performing psychological evaluations to determine whether Diaz was “overreporting” his symptoms. Id. The jury, in short, had ample basis to believe Diaz's testimony that he was severely emotionally harmed.

Given that two different jury trials found Diaz's claims valid, what should the law be to prevent this level of hostile workplace environment?

If $3 million in punitive damages too large, and you think it a smaller one is more reasonable, how much is enough to deter Telsa from having a hostile work environment in the future?

[misslibby]

Maybe his colleagues didn't like Diaz much. I don't approve of such slurs, on the other hand, I am in favor of free speech and people being in charge of their own companies.

Lousy lawyers - ianal, Musk said they were not allowed to present new evidence. No idea what was going on. Certainly there are judgements in the US legal system that seem wrong. It is not a perfect system.

[shadowgovt]

> I am in favor of free speech and people being in charge of their own companies.

About half a century ago, after some difficult (and in some cases bloody) fights, the United States passed several laws curtailing some liberties a company owner may take with how they run their affairs with the aim of a net societal good. They are pretty well-constrained, place little burden on companies overall, and have the net effect of allowing a double-digit-percentage of working Americans of having a fair shot at doing the work they must do every day to make wage free of a kind of psychological torment that their peers are never at risk of experiencing daily.

It was certainly a curtailment of freedom of speech and expression. It was a curtailment of such with significant positive outcomes and made the country a better place.

Nothing I've seen about the way we are today suggests to me that rolling back the clock on those laws would be a net good.

[misslibby]

That's your opinion as a probably left leaning person. Other people may think differently. That such laws were passed 50 years ago does not prove that they were a net positive.