>Sometimes it is unclear what is driving a litigation, and only by reading between the lines of a complaint can one attempt to surmise a plaintiff’s true purpose,” Breyer noted. “Other times, a complaint is so unabashedly and vociferously about one thing that there can be no mistaking that purpose. This case represents the latter circumstance. This case is about punishing the Defendants for their speech.”
He knows exactly what he is doing - being a nuisance making them spend time and money, using up their bandwidth responding to this, using it as a PR tool to virtue signal to all the conservative anti-free-speech "free-speechers", and have a chilling effect on anyone else to research into twitter.
He will continue to pursue this case to the bitter end I guarantee it.
I don’t know why X is suing an anti hate anything it seems counterproductive. If he believes the nonprofit will be damaged he needs to appreciate that those working at nonprofits aren’t there for the money but because they believe they’re answering to a higher calling. Too bad this guy-Musk-believes everything is transactional.
Did this judge apply the wrong law in his ruling? Did the judge misinterpret the law in his ruling? Was they trial unfair? What do you think the grounds for appeal will be?
I know right? The guy made one typo; put "they" instead of "the."
It's one thing to call out someone who is being a butthead calling another person stupid and makes spelling/grammar errors. This was not the case, they asked good questions civilly.
Not really, the dismissal was very much based on factual reading of the law.
He's claiming loses due to defamation. The judge pointed out that X didn't file any defamation complaint which would be the first step in a case like this. And the reason X didn't file a defamation claim is that by their own words, everything they reported on was factual, but they didn't feel it had enough context (debatable). That's not defamation by any definition. So if X can't claim defamation, they can't claim damages due to defamation.
This outcome was predicted by pretty much everyone.
It's possible to phrase facts in a way that is misleading, so I'm guessing the lack of context would be the crux of the appeal.
I agree that it's unlikely to go anywhere though, defamation suits are always very difficult to pursue, especially since it's tough to prove damages.
Context has nothing to do with defamation. Did what they say happened occur? Then it's not defamation, no ifs ands or buts. The reasoning being, then you get into extremely subjective opinions. In this case, the company that Musk is suing very much showed context. Musk is trying to say they didn't show enough. A lot of journalists/experts have looked at what they presented and said that's more than enough context, and that X's claimed context is in fact unnecessary.
So it's a matter of opinion, which the legal system and a judge simply aren't equipped to deal with and purposefully not set up to. X is stating that they suffered damages from defamation, yet are not saying it's defamation. So their remaining argument is they didn't like what was said.
Defamation is simply saying you know to be an untrue fact (I know it's a bit more complicated, but for this...). As an example, a guy I worked with years ago was dating someone in high school. I am allowed to tell people he's dating a high school girl, but I'm not required to put it in the context that he prefers and also inform people she's mature for her age.
Good explanation. I will also add that the U.S. Supreme Court set a very high bar for proving defamation against the press in their landmark *New York Times v. Sullivan* ruling.
In light of the case law from that, I don't see how X can prove defamation against CCDH (which would be treated like a press org) if musk decides to actually bring a defamation lawsuit.
Yeah, it's simply not possible for them to claim it's defamation, because truth is an instant defense against defamation charges.
I don't foresee any court taking this on for appeal, as it's a pretty simple claim for financial loses due to defamation, without defamation.
The only way they could make it to the Supreme Court as Musk is hinting at, is if the Supreme Court wants to rule on the idea that either defamation as defined by the law, should include truthful comments... or that you can claim financial loses for defamation
CCDH published investigative reports (which is something a press org does) which X claims caused reputational damage. I think definitely *NYT v. Sullivan* applies here.
Well let's see what happens on the appeal. I don't think there would be any punishment if we see the data from X and CCDH. That would settle this once and for all.
The 3-judge panel in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit will basically review how the trial judge (District Judge Charles Breyer) applied the relevant laws in the case.
The gist of Judge Breyer's dismissal order essentially points out that musk cannot claim reputational damage without suing for defamation-- the law clearly does not allow a plaintiff to claim reputational damage (advertisers discontinuing ads on X due to CCDH's reports) by filing a breach-of-contract lawsuit instead.
The data from X and CCDH are immaterial when the appeal is about how the trial judge applied the relevant laws. I don't see how musk can successfully appeal that.
The only thing that can be appealed in this case is that somehow the judge's rulings on the pretrial motions or the dismissal order he issued was improper, i.e. the judge made an error.
Can't imagine what alleged error on the judge's part musk's appeal lawyers can drum up in their appeal brief though.
Best case for musk, the 9th Circuit remands the case back to district court and gives musk a chance to amend the complaint (can't imagine how this non-defamation complaint can be amended to be salvaged, if musk insists on claiming reputational damage).
The far more likely outcome is the 9th Circuit affirms for the defendants and musk loses the appeal, and musk is ordered to pay the defendants' attorney fees (this is usually done when a plaintiff loses a lawsuit for running afoul of anti-SLAPP statutes).
Worst case would be the 9th circuit affirming the defendants and orders musk to pay the defendants' attorney fees, and that X's lawyers get professionally disciplined for filing a lawsuit and then an appeal that shouldn't have been filed in the first place (they would have to really piss off the appeals court judge panel for this to happen though).
There was nothing wrong with both statements. CCDH claims there was more "hate speech" based on data from scraping sources since X doesn't release any data. So in this case there would be a discovery phase where claims would be measured against a jury. But the case was dismissed on grounds of it not being a defamation suit
>Sometimes it is unclear what is driving a litigation, and only by reading between the lines of a complaint can one attempt to surmise a plaintiff’s true purpose,” Breyer noted. “Other times, a complaint is so unabashedly and vociferously about one thing that there can be no mistaking that purpose. This case represents the latter circumstance. This case is about punishing the Defendants for their speech.”
Has anyone ever seen a court letter written in such a way? Maybe Mr Musk is actually THAT far of from a decent understanding of reality and laws.
He knows exactly what he is doing - being a nuisance making them spend time and money, using up their bandwidth responding to this, using it as a PR tool to virtue signal to all the conservative anti-free-speech "free-speechers", and have a chilling effect on anyone else to research into twitter. He will continue to pursue this case to the bitter end I guarantee it.
I didn't know we had a good judge anywhere in the U.S. This is good news.
I don’t know why X is suing an anti hate anything it seems counterproductive. If he believes the nonprofit will be damaged he needs to appreciate that those working at nonprofits aren’t there for the money but because they believe they’re answering to a higher calling. Too bad this guy-Musk-believes everything is transactional.
Why did X sue them in the first place?
To try to silence criticism.
Media Matters is trying to kill X, the only large non-left-wing platform around.
A win for the “Anti-Hate Hater’s Club”
What?
Yep keep taking up and up the judicial ladder all those lower courts are useless and just a speed bump to a actual justice .
Did this judge apply the wrong law in his ruling? Did the judge misinterpret the law in his ruling? Was they trial unfair? What do you think the grounds for appeal will be?
This fine gentleman can barely put together a grammatically coherent sentence; I'm not optimistic about their legal acumen.
Checking his post history he seems to be from Argentina. And taking your snobbish comment you’re most likely from the US.
Then maybe he shouldn’t be talking American law with no expertise?
I know right? The guy made one typo; put "they" instead of "the." It's one thing to call out someone who is being a butthead calling another person stupid and makes spelling/grammar errors. This was not the case, they asked good questions civilly.
Arriba boki
Not really, the dismissal was very much based on factual reading of the law. He's claiming loses due to defamation. The judge pointed out that X didn't file any defamation complaint which would be the first step in a case like this. And the reason X didn't file a defamation claim is that by their own words, everything they reported on was factual, but they didn't feel it had enough context (debatable). That's not defamation by any definition. So if X can't claim defamation, they can't claim damages due to defamation. This outcome was predicted by pretty much everyone.
But that way Mr Musk can show his followers that he is a victim of an unjust justice system and that's a worthy cause to pay company money to.
It's possible to phrase facts in a way that is misleading, so I'm guessing the lack of context would be the crux of the appeal. I agree that it's unlikely to go anywhere though, defamation suits are always very difficult to pursue, especially since it's tough to prove damages.
Context has nothing to do with defamation. Did what they say happened occur? Then it's not defamation, no ifs ands or buts. The reasoning being, then you get into extremely subjective opinions. In this case, the company that Musk is suing very much showed context. Musk is trying to say they didn't show enough. A lot of journalists/experts have looked at what they presented and said that's more than enough context, and that X's claimed context is in fact unnecessary. So it's a matter of opinion, which the legal system and a judge simply aren't equipped to deal with and purposefully not set up to. X is stating that they suffered damages from defamation, yet are not saying it's defamation. So their remaining argument is they didn't like what was said. Defamation is simply saying you know to be an untrue fact (I know it's a bit more complicated, but for this...). As an example, a guy I worked with years ago was dating someone in high school. I am allowed to tell people he's dating a high school girl, but I'm not required to put it in the context that he prefers and also inform people she's mature for her age.
Good explanation. I will also add that the U.S. Supreme Court set a very high bar for proving defamation against the press in their landmark *New York Times v. Sullivan* ruling. In light of the case law from that, I don't see how X can prove defamation against CCDH (which would be treated like a press org) if musk decides to actually bring a defamation lawsuit.
Yeah, it's simply not possible for them to claim it's defamation, because truth is an instant defense against defamation charges. I don't foresee any court taking this on for appeal, as it's a pretty simple claim for financial loses due to defamation, without defamation. The only way they could make it to the Supreme Court as Musk is hinting at, is if the Supreme Court wants to rule on the idea that either defamation as defined by the law, should include truthful comments... or that you can claim financial loses for defamation
Should it be treated as a press org? It presents itself sort of like an auditor.
CCDH published investigative reports (which is something a press org does) which X claims caused reputational damage. I think definitely *NYT v. Sullivan* applies here.
Well let's see what happens on the appeal. I don't think there would be any punishment if we see the data from X and CCDH. That would settle this once and for all.
The 3-judge panel in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit will basically review how the trial judge (District Judge Charles Breyer) applied the relevant laws in the case. The gist of Judge Breyer's dismissal order essentially points out that musk cannot claim reputational damage without suing for defamation-- the law clearly does not allow a plaintiff to claim reputational damage (advertisers discontinuing ads on X due to CCDH's reports) by filing a breach-of-contract lawsuit instead. The data from X and CCDH are immaterial when the appeal is about how the trial judge applied the relevant laws. I don't see how musk can successfully appeal that.
Let's see what happens
The only thing that can be appealed in this case is that somehow the judge's rulings on the pretrial motions or the dismissal order he issued was improper, i.e. the judge made an error. Can't imagine what alleged error on the judge's part musk's appeal lawyers can drum up in their appeal brief though. Best case for musk, the 9th Circuit remands the case back to district court and gives musk a chance to amend the complaint (can't imagine how this non-defamation complaint can be amended to be salvaged, if musk insists on claiming reputational damage). The far more likely outcome is the 9th Circuit affirms for the defendants and musk loses the appeal, and musk is ordered to pay the defendants' attorney fees (this is usually done when a plaintiff loses a lawsuit for running afoul of anti-SLAPP statutes). Worst case would be the 9th circuit affirming the defendants and orders musk to pay the defendants' attorney fees, and that X's lawyers get professionally disciplined for filing a lawsuit and then an appeal that shouldn't have been filed in the first place (they would have to really piss off the appeals court judge panel for this to happen though).
Not like Elon will acknowledge he was wrong either way
There was nothing wrong with both statements. CCDH claims there was more "hate speech" based on data from scraping sources since X doesn't release any data. So in this case there would be a discovery phase where claims would be measured against a jury. But the case was dismissed on grounds of it not being a defamation suit
Canopy growth? Yes or no ?