A date has been set for a hearing and it's April 1st.

By then it will be Vernon Unsworth MBE vs Elon Musk, April fool. Obviously only an opinion not a statement of fact 

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/dec/27/elon-musk-pedo-diver-vernon-unsworth-defamation-lawsuit-dismiss

Simon Wilson said:

A date has been set for a hearing and it's April 1st.

By then it will be Vernon Unsworth MBE vs Elon Musk, April fool. Obviously only an opinion not a statement of fact 

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/dec/27/elon-musk-pedo-diver-vernon-unsworth-defamation-lawsuit-dismiss

Click to expand...

I'm honestly surprised that even Mr Musk would attempt to defeat accusations of slander and libel by saying that his comments were obviously not true. Isn't the first rule of winning a libel suit that you have to convince the court that the comments aren't.... you know, libelious?

I'm not a lawyer on either side of the pond, however I am of the understanding that you can say more-or-less anything you like under first amendment freedom of speech rights, and if it is clearly a falsehood then it becomes very difficult to then sue, as a libelous or slanderous claim relies on the premise that someone actually believed the story.
This is how the US "supermarket tabloids" operate, with covers like the one in the link:

https://i.redd.it/t6dlzbdyiwx11.jpg

I not sure the first amendment freedom of speech could apply here; Elon musk was not saying anything that the US government would want to censor.

Bob Smith said:

I not sure the first amendment freedom of speech could apply here; Elon musk was not saying anything that the US government would want to censor.

Click to expand...

This.

It's a very commonly held misconception (On both sides of the pond), that the first amendment is a free for all to say what you like. It was actually written with the aim of allowing people to "to express beliefs and ideas without unwarranted government restriction...".

It doesn't mean tthat someone can say what they want about a private citizen, and the "Unwarranted" part means there are exceptions to the US Gov not stepping in. I stuggle to understand why if I as a British layperson understand this, why someone legally trained in the US would even think about it.

NewStuff said:

Bob Smith said:

I not sure the first amendment freedom of speech could apply here; Elon musk was not saying anything that the US government would want to censor.

Click to expand...

This.

It's a very commonly held misconception (On both sides of the pond), that the first amendment is a free for all to say what you like. It was actually written with the aim of allowing people to "to express beliefs and ideas without unwarranted government restriction...".

It doesn't mean tthat someone can say what they want about a private citizen, and the "Unwarranted" part means there are exceptions to the US Gov not stepping in. I stuggle to understand why if I as a British layperson understand this, why someone legally trained in the US would even think about it.

Click to expand...

Every day is a learning day!

"and if it is clearly a falsehood then it becomes very difficult to then sue, as a libelous or slanderous claim relies on the premise that someone actually believed the story"

If this is the line that Elon Musks defense are taking, then I reckon they're on a hide to nowhere.

With all due respect to Vernon, its not something that might be considered 'clearly a falsehood'. 

I hope that doesn't come across wrongly. Remember, this is a country that has somewhat of a reputation and is a destination for middle aged men of a certain bent.

My point being is that Musks comments made repeatedly over several tweets, could not be considered 'clearly a falsehood', they are in fact, mildly believable and thus totally libelous.

I hope Vernons lawyers wring every cent out of Musk.

I thought the figure of $75,000 dollars was quite small when I first saw it.  Not even pocket money for Musk and I'm surprised he's not just settled out of court straight away with a higher figure.

Not that I like 'settling out of court' situations, it strikes me as the rich just buying their way out of their misdemeanors 'cause they can.