Realistically i imagine the plaintiff had a contemptible attack strategy, he needed to prove two things,
- Firstly to prove that someone who saw the tweet believes that under Musk's immense profile that they'd believe without evidence that the plaintiff is 'a pedo guy', ergo damage to his image.
- Secondly they needed to prove that financial damages had occurred at all to even bother with assumed damages or punitive damages.
The first is the most important and hardest to get right i imagine, especially since this is a case about a twitter defamation... i doubt anyone would remember or care about the plaintiff after a short period of time, as you lose the immediate context and shock of the discourse. The nature of social media makes trials like this inherently difficult and the plaintiff really needed to make sure they could prove this point, as the defence has an easy ride otherwise.
I wonder how it will affect future cases or whether its now entirely fine to call people pedos with no evidence on Twitter.
- Firstly to prove that someone who saw the tweet believes that under Musk's immense profile that they'd believe without evidence that the plaintiff is 'a pedo guy', ergo damage to his image.
- Secondly they needed to prove that financial damages had occurred at all to even bother with assumed damages or punitive damages.
The first is the most important and hardest to get right i imagine, especially since this is a case about a twitter defamation... i doubt anyone would remember or care about the plaintiff after a short period of time, as you lose the immediate context and shock of the discourse. The nature of social media makes trials like this inherently difficult and the plaintiff really needed to make sure they could prove this point, as the defence has an easy ride otherwise.
I wonder how it will affect future cases or whether its now entirely fine to call people pedos with no evidence on Twitter.
Last edited: