Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
PowerButchi

Elon Musk is a fucking paedophile

Recommended Posts

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2019/dec/06/elon-musk-vernon-unsworth-trial-verdict?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Copy_to_clipboard

Turns out you get the justice you can afford. So I reckon Elon Musk is a rapey paedo. 

What a shocking state of affairs that court case was. A win for the child fucker. 

 

So if anyone would like to say whatever they want to Elon Musk who looks like he'd hang around schools giving out sweets before twatting people of other races you can, as insults are protected speech. 

Edited by PowerButchi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While it's obvious to anyone that the jury got it wrong, the caver got it completely wrong in the first place by suing in America not the UK. He saw dollar signs and sued for $190million, which is way more than he'd have got in the UK. Compared to American cases, British libel cases are much more in favour of the plaintiff as they reverse the burden of proof. If Sally Bercow can lose a defamation case for tweeting "Why is Lord McAlpine trending? *innocent face*", Elon Musk would have zero chance either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rumours the jury deliberated in Scrooge McDuck’s money pool are so far unconfirmed 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, Tamura said:

While it's obvious to anyone that the jury got it wrong, the caver got it completely wrong in the first place by suing in America not the UK. He saw dollar signs and sued for $190million, which is way more than he'd have got in the UK. Compared to American cases, British libel cases are much more in favour of the plaintiff as they reverse the burden of proof. If Sally Bercow can lose a defamation case for tweeting "Why is Lord McAlpine trending? *innocent face*", Elon Musk would have zero chance either.

It's also that the US legal definition of defamation entails proving damage. In the UK there does not need to be proven damage for defamation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Tamura said:

While it's obvious to anyone that the jury got it wrong, the caver got it completely wrong in the first place by suing in America not the UK. He saw dollar signs and sued for $190million, which is way more than he'd have got in the UK. Compared to American cases, British libel cases are much more in favour of the plaintiff as they reverse the burden of proof. If Sally Bercow can lose a defamation case for tweeting "Why is Lord McAlpine trending? *innocent face*", Elon Musk would have zero chance either.

Unsworth would likely have had difficulty bringing a successful libel claim in England based on two fronts - one being under the Defemation Act 2013 which alongside a number of changes to the way defemation cases in England & Wales are handled and proceeded with, now has plaintiffs required to show that if the defendant is not domiciled in the UK, an EU country or any country that is a signatory of the Lugano Convention (Inc. Norway, Iceland & Switzerland), they must demonstrate to the court why such a case should be heard under English & Welsh law as opposed to anywhere else where the defamatory statement was published - if they can't convince the court that holding such a case under English & Welsh law is the most appropriate, then the court must rule that it has no jurisdiction to hear it. This was intended to fight against libel tourism that was plaguing English courts since the late 90's based on prior defamation law - before the 2013 Act, a statement published on the Internet that could be read in the UK, even if all persons involved were neither British citizens or permenant residents, and was hosted on a server outside of the UK, was still actionable. Secondly, the 'Muricans were (somewhat understandably) worried about British courts trying to enforce damages against its citizens whom are ordinary resident in the USA and might even have never visited the UK in their life. Therefore the SPEECH Act was passed in the US Congress in 2010 which meant that foreign libel claims were unenforceable in the USA unless the case was heard under local laws that were equivalent or better to laws concerning libel in the US. So even if Unsworth sued Musk for libel in England, had his case heard and judged that Musk was guilty of defamation, obtaining monetary damages via an application from the English judiciary through Americas legal system would almost certainly fail. They take their "first amendment rights" pretty seriously over there, the bill easily passed without any opposition.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, PJ Power said:

They take their "first amendment rights" pretty seriously over there, the bill easily passed without any opposition.

I mean, they also don't recognise the ICC and treat the U.N. like a joke. I think they just really don't like being told what to do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...