354
submitted 1 year ago by ZeroCool@feddit.ch to c/news@lemmy.world
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] blazera@kbin.social 10 points 1 year ago

gotta love America where not making as much money as you wanted is a crime

[-] sadreality@kbin.social 3 points 1 year ago

That's for people in the big club...

I don't think we are entitled to such rights as peasants

[-] charonn0@startrek.website 1 points 1 year ago
[-] blazera@kbin.social 2 points 1 year ago

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.

[-] charonn0@startrek.website 1 points 1 year ago

Ah. You're mistaken, then. This is a private lawsuit, not a criminal proceeding.

[-] blazera@kbin.social 0 points 1 year ago
[-] charonn0@startrek.website 1 points 1 year ago

A private lawsuit is one that is filed by a private party (individual, company, etc.). It is very different from a criminal trial.

[-] blazera@kbin.social 1 points 1 year ago

it's still based in law. the government enforces rulings. Otherwise defendents would have no reason to comply.

[-] charonn0@startrek.website 1 points 1 year ago

It's still not a criminal case. And this isn't some kind of obscure technical point, the differences are substantial.

[-] blazera@kbin.social 1 points 1 year ago

Would you be okay if i rephrased my post as "against the law" instead of "a crime"?

[-] charonn0@startrek.website 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

It would still be an inaccurate and unfair characterization of the USA, which is really what bothers me.

[-] blazera@kbin.social 0 points 1 year ago

The hell is inaccurate about it now?

[-] charonn0@startrek.website 1 points 1 year ago

It implies that this sort of law is unique or peculiar to the USA, and it implies that the law is a bad thing.

[-] blazera@kbin.social 1 points 1 year ago

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.

[-] charonn0@startrek.website 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

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.

[-] blazera@kbin.social 1 points 1 year ago

Mmm your example is already really common, and most of the target restaurants are the most profitable in the world.

[-] charonn0@startrek.website 1 points 1 year ago
[-] blazera@kbin.social 0 points 1 year ago

As a result, your restaurant loses business.

"the most profitable in the world."

It just dont work the way you say it does.

[-] charonn0@startrek.website 1 points 1 year ago

Whether the restaurant remains profitable is beside the point. If you can demonstrate that even one customer chose not to visit your restaurant as a result of my lies then I could be liable for defamation.

[-] blazera@kbin.social 1 points 1 year ago

Yeah im the one that came in here saying it was against the law. Its a bad law. The most profitable business in the world clearly has not been harmed.

But it should be.

[-] paper_clip@kbin.social 1 points 1 year ago

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.

[-] blazera@kbin.social 1 points 1 year ago

As much as i love fox news losing money, i dont think any rich folks in Dominion have faced any real harm from the fiasco.

Same with pfizer over antivax nuts all the way up into federal government.

Now, harm over the disinformation to the general public on the other hand.

this post was submitted on 05 Sep 2023
354 points (92.5% liked)

News

23659 readers
3035 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS