[kjksf]

This is a bad game of telephone where people discussing what they think Tesla lawyers said but not what they really said.

1. Tesla lawyers are not claiming that whatever Tesla said is fine because first amendment.

2. They are claiming that the laws DMV is using to go after tesla is invalid under first amendment.

Hopefully you can see the difference and see that everyone here argues 1. but not the 2.

The article is pretty clear so draw your conclusion about the state of online discourse.

[qarl]

Actually, I'm not seeing much practical difference between the two. Could you elaborate on what you deem is obvious?

[NotYourLawyer]

The idea is that regardless of the truth/falsity of Tesla’s speech, the law is so broad that it impermissibly restricts lots of true speech.

[hedora]

> One of the state laws that Tesla complains about is Cal. Veh. Code § 24011.5, which says that companies "shall not name any partial driving automation feature, or describe any partial driving automation feature in marketing materials, using language that implies or would otherwise lead a reasonable person to believe, that the feature allows the vehicle to function as an autonomous vehicle."

So, they are saying that, even though they are totally lying, hypothetically, someone could build a “partial driving feature” that makes the vehicle “autonomous”?

[cma]

He charged extra saying there would be a robotaxi network for cars sold in around 2016/2017. It's almost 2024: the cars are getting close to EOL. If the law is struck down couldn't it be done in part?

[hedora]

They’re also claiming that even though they are continuing to break the law, the statute of limitations starts when the government first noticed the illegal behavior.

[qarl]

Ah - that makes sense - but does not seem to be OP's original claim.

[phendrenad2]

Checked the article, you're right, the headline is deceptive. It seems like the laws Tesla is referencing are things like "You must not call something autonomous unless it meets <some arbitrary definition of autonomous>". Meanwhile, "autonomous" is not a binary value, and it's hard to draw a line where autonomy begins. Reminds me of the "we'll know it when we see it" definition of pornography put forth by congress at one point.

[pavon]

But regulators have done that going on a century now, and it has held up in court. The FDA has long lists of definitions of what you can and can't call chocolate, milk, cheese, beef, etc.

[deelowe]

Then they should do it in this instance as well. Until there's guidance, "autonomy" is just a word like any other and open to interpretation. In those instances, free speech should protect any company using the term and I say this as someone who 100% believes Tesla's advertising was deceptive.

[Workaccount2]

I'd say only 30-40% of the population can grasp nuance like this and its the source of so. much. headache.

[mannykannot]

While there is some of the former here, the latter is adequately addressed.

A claim that the discussion is entirely mistaken is a quite commonly seen characteristic of the state of online discourse.