[aw1621107]

> That's not the key at all.

The reason it is is because defamation requires falsity, and if the article states nothing false then there cannot be a claim for defamation or for anything arising from that.

> Some of what is being alleged is the equivalent of taking something that is several standard deviations from the mean and claiming this is the mean.

The article did not "claim[] this is the mean," though. There is no wording directly stating anything about frequency of occurrence or whether the observations are representative. Your quoted paragraph says as much.

> Making a concerted and calculated effort to damage your career and person with false and deeply distorted allegations? Would that be OK?

Being OK with something is not the same thing as something being (il)legal. The First Amendment doesn't only protect "acceptable" speech.

In addition, you're mixing two different things here. False allegations are subject to defamation claims by definition. Deeply distorted allegations, on the other hand, are not automatically defamation - the manner and effect of the distortion influences the analysis.

[robomartin]

This will be decided in a court of law.

If Elon is wrong, it will cost him dearly. If he is right, the consequences for Media Matters, their inner and outer circles should be severe enough to fit the crime.

It's that simple. We'll see.

I have a feeling that Media Matters might be in serious trouble. I would be surprised if Elon has any interest in a settlement out of court. If he is right, he is going for what he called the "thermonuclear option", which means he will take this up the legal system as far and wide as he is able to.

Maybe this is what this country needs in order to eradicate the violent practice of attempting to utterly destroy people and companies not aligned with a specific political narrative.

How is this behavior good for society in the long run? It isn't.

I mean, today, we live in a society where you have to be careful what you say because you never know if a nut-job with a million followers on TikTok is going to latch-on and enlist a massive mob to destroy you, your career and your family.

Again, in what universe is that good for society?

I don't know where the lawsuit is going to go. If Media Matters is found to be guilty, I hope the courts make a brutal example of them and everyone who participated in the many destruction campaigns they have engaged in over the years. It's about time.

[aw1621107]

> If Elon is wrong, it will cost him dearly. If he is right, the consequences for Media Matters, their inner and outer circles should be severe enough to fit the crime.

It's not even a matter of whether Elon is right or wrong since he doesn't really dispute any facts. That's the biggest hangup people have with the lawsuit.

> How is this behavior good for society in the long run? It isn't.

That's not really relevant here since "good for society" is not the legal standard for libel/slander/defamation/etc. cases, for better or worse.

And if I'm thinking of the same thing you are, you can't use the US government to substantially address the behavior you so detest without repealing the First Amendment.

[robomartin]

Well, you have it entirely wrong.

Elon is accusing Media Matters of something. That's the "If Elon is wrong" (or right) part the courts have to decide.

If he is right, this is a crime (or whatever the appropriate legal classification might be). And this is precisely what we have laws and government for.

If someone slanders you, the law is what you use to deal with the problem.

This case has nothing to do with the First Amendment.

Here's a super-simple primer on that:

At a basic level everyone is free to say anything.

The First Amendment does not protect you from the consequences of your speech.

You can go out there slander and libel anyone you want. That does NOT mean the US Constitution protects you from the consequences of your actions. Not even close.

I was involved in a slander case decades ago. A competitor, aided by his buddies at an industry newsletter, decided to slander me and my company at the time. They allowed him to write an article full of serious lies. When I took that to a specialist attorney he explained what I just said above about how ignorant people are about what the First Amendment actually means in terms of rights and responsibilities for your actions.

In the lawsuit we filed approximately ten people could have lost absolutely everything. My attorney said it was so obviously slanderous and malicious that we could go for the financial decapitation of everyone involved. I didn't want to live with having cause that kind of harm to a bunch of fucking morons who didn't know any better and got carried away. The settlement was sizable. They all suffered serious financial damage. My competitor had to close his doors. That's one asshole I had absolutely no sympathy for. It cost him dearly. Well deserved.

Don't confuse free speech with the freedom to be an asshole or cause material destruction without consequences. That isn't what free speech is about.

It's high time that someone teaches outfits like Media Matters a solid (legal/financial) lesson. Yet, the allegations have to be proven in court. We'll see what happens.

If proven in court, I hope he goes after every media organization that pushed the narrative and wins. Maybe then we will have media that goes out of their way to deliver verified, truthful and well researched evidence-based news.

This is what puzzles me. Why doesn't everyone want our media organizations to be truthful? Again, how are lies and manipulation good for society? I don't care what political angle they come from. We should not tolerate this crap. It isn't good for anyone.

[aw1621107]

> Elon is accusing Media Matters of something. That's the "If Elon is wrong" (or right) part the courts have to decide.

My apologies for misinterpreting you. I was interpreting the statement as talking about Elon and Media Matters disagreeing on some factual claim, which (basically?) hasn't occurred yet.

> If someone slanders you, the law is what you use to deal with the problem. > > This case has nothing to do with the First Amendment.

The case has everything to do with the First Amendment. The First Amendment limits the restrictions/consequences that can be placed on speech by laws, so if some speech is protected by the First Amendment then you can't use the law to deal with the problem.

What Elon is complaining about here is undoubtedly the type of speech that the First Amendment can protect. Therefore, the very first hurdle he will have to cross is convincing the judge that the First Amendment does not apply. If it does, nothing else matters.

(Well, maybe venue issues will cause problems for the lawsuit first, but the First Amendment would be the first substantive issue).

> This is what puzzles me. Why doesn't everyone want our media organizations to be truthful?

It's a nice-sounding sentiment that's easy to agree with in the abstract, to be sure, but it's running up against multiple factors that don't exactly incentivize it and it's going to be extremely difficult at best to change that, if it's even possible at all.

Not to mention there's a distinction to be drawn here between societal/cultural/etc. enforcement and governmental enforcement of the ideals you wish were adhered to. It's not without reason that the First Amendment is as broad as it is, after all...

[robomartin]

I think you are over-using First Amendment to effectively make a false claim from authority.

Well, what we say here is irrelevant. The courts will decide. I am looking forward to that outcome, one way or the other. Stay tuned.

[aw1621107]

> I think you are over-using First Amendment to effectively make a false claim from authority.

Would you mind explaining why you think so? If you're not interested I can hardly force you to, but it seems like a rather unusual position compared to what I've generally seen.