I...already described it? Elon didnt make as much money as he wanted and now there's a court case. A case where nothing was taken, only not given.
Ah. You're mistaken, then. This is a private lawsuit, not a criminal proceeding.
Law is public
A private lawsuit is one that is filed by a private party (individual, company, etc.). It is very different from a criminal trial.
it's still based in law. the government enforces rulings. Otherwise defendents would have no reason to comply.
It's still not a criminal case. And this isn't some kind of obscure technical point, the differences are substantial.
Would you be okay if i rephrased my post as "against the law" instead of "a crime"?
It would still be an inaccurate and unfair characterization of the USA, which is really what bothers me.
The hell is inaccurate about it now?
It implies that this sort of law is unique or peculiar to the USA, and it implies that the law is a bad thing.
Of course its a bad thing, musk isnt entitled to anyone else's money.
Like the shit with Targer where investors sued over lgbt support because people boycotted. Fuck this law.
Suppose you were a business making, say, voting machines. It's a good business -- there are a lot of elections, they have to be tabulated, and you have a way of making that tabulation easier to do. You're not going to be Google or Microsoft, but you're in a comfortable niche.
Then comes a bunch of dumbfuck conspiracy theorists who accuse you of rigging the vote against their favored candidate. You're not happy about this, but this is just a bunch of nutjobs. To some extent, what can you do? Then this major news organization takes up what those conspiracy theorists are saying, and they're doing this to enrich themselves by putting out news that these dumbfucks like to hear. This amplification is damaging to your business (because it's costly to defend yourself and you're losing business anyway), and you can prove that this major news organization is doing this on purpose, for their own profit.
You sue that major news organization. Discovery is a delight, because these people really did know that there was no evidence for any of these conspiracy theories, but they kept repeating them over and over again, damaging your business.
Does this sound familiar? That's why we have laws so that victims of libel can recover some of those damages.
Now, I'm not saying Musk is justified. Musk can go threatening to sue, etc., and I'm sure ADL lawyers would be delighted to argue before a judge to tell Musk to fuck off, since he really doesn't have grounds to stand on.
Imagine if you opened a restaurant, and I went around lying to everyone that you spit in the food. As a result, your restaurant loses business. Shouldn't you have legal recourse to prevent me from spreading such lies about your business, and to recoup the losses you incurred?
I don't mean to suggest that Musk has a valid case under the law, only to point out that the law in question is actually quite reasonable and necessary.
What crime would that be?
I...already described it? Elon didnt make as much money as he wanted and now there's a court case. A case where nothing was taken, only not given.
Ah. You're mistaken, then. This is a private lawsuit, not a criminal proceeding.
Law is public
A private lawsuit is one that is filed by a private party (individual, company, etc.). It is very different from a criminal trial.
it's still based in law. the government enforces rulings. Otherwise defendents would have no reason to comply.
It's still not a criminal case. And this isn't some kind of obscure technical point, the differences are substantial.
Would you be okay if i rephrased my post as "against the law" instead of "a crime"?
It would still be an inaccurate and unfair characterization of the USA, which is really what bothers me.
The hell is inaccurate about it now?
It implies that this sort of law is unique or peculiar to the USA, and it implies that the law is a bad thing.
Of course its a bad thing, musk isnt entitled to anyone else's money.
Like the shit with Targer where investors sued over lgbt support because people boycotted. Fuck this law.
Suppose you were a business making, say, voting machines. It's a good business -- there are a lot of elections, they have to be tabulated, and you have a way of making that tabulation easier to do. You're not going to be Google or Microsoft, but you're in a comfortable niche.
Then comes a bunch of dumbfuck conspiracy theorists who accuse you of rigging the vote against their favored candidate. You're not happy about this, but this is just a bunch of nutjobs. To some extent, what can you do? Then this major news organization takes up what those conspiracy theorists are saying, and they're doing this to enrich themselves by putting out news that these dumbfucks like to hear. This amplification is damaging to your business (because it's costly to defend yourself and you're losing business anyway), and you can prove that this major news organization is doing this on purpose, for their own profit.
You sue that major news organization. Discovery is a delight, because these people really did know that there was no evidence for any of these conspiracy theories, but they kept repeating them over and over again, damaging your business.
Does this sound familiar? That's why we have laws so that victims of libel can recover some of those damages.
Now, I'm not saying Musk is justified. Musk can go threatening to sue, etc., and I'm sure ADL lawyers would be delighted to argue before a judge to tell Musk to fuck off, since he really doesn't have grounds to stand on.
Imagine if you opened a restaurant, and I went around lying to everyone that you spit in the food. As a result, your restaurant loses business. Shouldn't you have legal recourse to prevent me from spreading such lies about your business, and to recoup the losses you incurred?
I don't mean to suggest that Musk has a valid case under the law, only to point out that the law in question is actually quite reasonable and necessary.