Twitter sues Elon Musk for backing out of Twitter 44 Billion dollar deal.

Status
Not open for further replies.

TMCM

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Apr 15, 2003
Messages
1,476
lol... Elon wanted to dump a crap ton of his over valued TSLA stock. He decided to "save free speech" by buying twitter so that he could dump a portion of his TSLA stock without tanking TSLA price. Since he waived his DD in the contract it will be an interesting case to follow. As far as Devin Stone AKA Legal Eagle, I've been a practicing attorney for 8 years now and while I can't comment the accuracy of all of his videos, the few he has done that cover areas of law that I practice, he's pretty accurate while keeping things simplified for non lawyers to understand.
 

Meeho

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Aug 16, 2010
Messages
5,614
But you didn't prove it was bad, just that Jones isn't flawless. Can you show that a significant portion of his opinions are incorrect? "He got it wrong once, therefore we can never trust what he says" is not a strong argument by itself. You need to show that his opinion was either a gross error (one that any competent lawyer would avoid) or reflective of problems with his
His track record on not milk toast basic legal stuff is almost consistenty bad. Examples were given. Given his track record and the demonstrated inability to think and analyze outside his ideological bias, I can make an educated guess that his latest legal take on a legaly nuanced case is probably in line with his usual performance, hence more probably wrong than not. Not to be taken as fact, at the very least.

Appeals to authority are only fallacies if the connection is either arbitrary or not supported by the authority's track record. Jones is a considerably stronger source than Barnes because his career and expertise are more directly relevant to matters like these. I have yet to see evidence that Jones has a history of getting things wrong, and from what I've seen he typically gets things right.
He was unable to even represent the facts right (e.g. Kyle Rittenhouse trial), let alone the legal arguments. His bio and current employment position was used as an argument for his correctness. It's precisely his track record that makes him a questionable source.

Look at the cases Barnes has chosen lately. Look at his Twitter account, for goodness' sake. The man has an agenda and a clear preference for his high-profile cases in recent years.
So?
And how are Robin Hood responsibilities relevant when he's siding with Musk, the wealthiest person in the world?
That was your argument, not mine. I don't see how it pertains to anything at all.
 

Axman

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jul 13, 2005
Messages
14,296
Axman was using the legal equivalent of "but some of my best friends are Black!"

Standing up for minorities who were targeted for their status is a bad thing when the wrong people do it. Got it. Standing up for blue-collar workers who don't want a mega-corporation to perform medical experiments on them is a bad thing, too. And fighting for free speech and a fair and open public square, worst thing ever.

Twitter is the real victim, I'm convinced now. They haven't been defrauding anyone this whole time, not any of the people and business that invested in it, or any of it's ad buyers. They haven't been using their AI and bot accounts to garner any influence politically or financially, and they certainly haven't used their position of authority to fraudulently inflate their stock values.
 

Meeho

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Aug 16, 2010
Messages
5,614
Axman was using the legal equivalent of "but some of my best friends are Black!" That is, using token support for minorities in an attempt to excuse lousy behavior.
No, that was a response for him not doing legal work for the "downtrodden". I don't care about that. I would like to know what does conservative bias have to do with race, which you implied?

Barnes can't possibly be a biased, unreliable source because, hey, he occasionally represents dark-skinned people!
Here you go again? What has bias got to do with race? What's your obsession with race in non related things?
And of course he is biased. Everyone is. The question is if it prevents one from proper analysis.

Let me know when he's not throwing his weight behind anti-vaxxers and other debunked conspiracies and you might have a leg to stand on. Until then, I trust Jones far more than Barnes.
You should trust the one with better legal analysis track record on legal analysis stuff. You just like Jones more for unrelated ideological reasons.

Evidence in Jones' videos, please? If you're going to make a serious accusation like that, you need to back it up with more than just a "widely" claim. I don't need a comprehensive list — just show that there are numerous videos where he made serious mistakes (as in bad interpretations of law, not just cases that didn't end as expected).
Several videos have already been posted by myself and others.

Musk doesn't have an airtight case here; it doesn't take much to see that.
Of course he doesn't! There is no such case.
 

OutOfPhase

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
May 11, 2005
Messages
5,441
The only thing I will add here is that I heard someone once describe people having a stupid battle on twitter as a "twattle".
 

Aurelius

2[H]4U
Joined
Mar 22, 2003
Messages
3,963
Standing up for minorities who were targeted for their status is a bad thing when the wrong people do it. Got it. Standing up for blue-collar workers who don't want a mega-corporation to perform medical experiments on them is a bad thing, too. And fighting for free speech and a fair and open public square, worst thing ever.

Twitter is the real victim, I'm convinced now. They haven't been defrauding anyone this whole time, not any of the people and business that invested in it, or any of it's ad buyers. They haven't been using their AI and bot accounts to garner any influence politically or financially, and they certainly haven't used their position of authority to fraudulently inflate their stock values.
No, I'd say that representing injustices against minorities is generally good thing. But it doesn't absolve Barnes of his behavior in other areas... including his support for anti-science (and really anti-safety) policies.

You do realize you just destroyed your own argument, right? Even if I bought into the demonstrably false anti-vax bullshit or your basic misunderstanding of the First Amendment, you just made clear that Barnes is excessively partisan and can't be trusted to deliver a fair assessment of Musk's chances in court. Of course he's going to champion the tech mogul who's swinging hard-right and hoping to turn Twitter into the next Parler; the problem is that he'll do it irrespective of evidence.
 

LukeTbk

2[H]4U
Joined
Sep 10, 2020
Messages
3,024
You do realize you just destroyed your own argument, right? Even if I bought into the demonstrably false anti-vax bullshit or your basic misunderstanding of the First Amendment, you just made clear that Barnes is excessively partisan and can't be trusted to deliver a fair assessment of Musk's chances in court. Of course he's going to champion the tech mogul who's swinging hard-right and hoping to turn Twitter into the next Parler; the problem is that he'll do it irrespective of evidence.
Could be me not reading this thread carrefully but the message you quote make zero mention of the First Amendment and that seem a bit strawmenish. And if one assume it was a reference to the first amendtement (or those of the relevant state consitution would it be california/delaware) it is far from obvious that private university and private mall could be force to hold speech they dislike according to court but not Twitter, the history of the state protecting free speech on private property is a complicated one.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/447/74

PRUNEYARD SHOPPING CENTER and Fred Sahadi, Appellants, v. Michael ROBINS et al.​

Soon after appellees had begun soliciting in appellant privately owned shopping center's central courtyard for signatures from passersby for petitions in opposition to a United Nations resolution, a security guard informed appellees that they would have to leave because their activity violated shopping center regulations prohibiting any visitor or tenant from engaging in any publicly expressive activity that is not directly related to the center's commercial purposes

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/326/501/

Marsh v. Alabama, 326 U.S. 501 (1946)

The First Amendment prohibits a law against distributing religious literature in a company-owned town without receiving permission from the town's management because this is essentially state action.

Food Employees v. Logan Valley Plaza, Inc., 391 U.S. 308 (1968)​

A business in a privately owned shopping center cannot prevent labor picketing in its surroundings.

While other courts/moment, feel differently in very similar case:
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/407/551
U.S. Supreme Court held that the owners of a shopping mall could prohibit anti-war activists from distributing leaflets at their center without violating the First Amendment.



 
Last edited:

staknhalo

2[H]4U
Joined
Jun 11, 2007
Messages
3,071
People, lawyers or not, who virtue the hardest have the most skeletons in their closet ('upstairs', or maybe even literal...) - from my experience on this Earth
 

Aurelius

2[H]4U
Joined
Mar 22, 2003
Messages
3,963
Could be me not reading this thread carrefully but the message you quote make zero mention of the First Amendment and that seem a bit strawmenish.
I'm referring to Axman's "free speech and a fair and open public square" remark. Basically, that misinterpretation of the First Amendment conservatives like to brandish — the notion that Twitter, Facebook et. al. should be forced to carry all content that isn't otherwise clearly illegal, and that they're "the new town square" because they happen to have large user bases. It's a silly argument (the First Amendment explicitly protects private companies from being forced to host content), and more often than not it's an attempt to distract from the shady nature of the content in question.

As it is, that's relevant to Elon Musk's would-be purchase — he was ostensibly trying to buy Twitter to make it more of a free speech haven. Whether or not that would happen is another story (Musk would still have to honor content regulations in the EU and elsewhere), but that was one of his stated goals. And that's part of why people like Barnes support Musk, even as Musk tries to back out; he's supposedly a champion for the cause.
 

LukeTbk

2[H]4U
Joined
Sep 10, 2020
Messages
3,024
I'm referring to Axman's "free speech and a fair and open public square" remark. Basically, that misinterpretation of the First Amendment conservatives like to brandish — the notion that Twitter, Facebook et. al. should be forced to carry all content that isn't otherwise clearly illegal, and that they're "the new town square" because they happen to have large user bases. It's a silly argument (the First Amendment explicitly protects private companies from being forced to host content), and more often than not it's an attempt to distract from the shady nature of the content in question.
Yes free speech, not first amendment (American tend to conflate the 2 and now that cultural practice seem to have spread worldwide)

And I really doubt that considering the supreme court in the past did give the right to the state to force them to do so:

Saying that this:

First Amendment​

First Amendment Explained

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.


How does that Explicitly protect private companies from say the state of California (or Delaware if that would be the relevant ruler in the case of Twitter) to force a private university, commercial center or twitter to accept to host speech that they do not like, do you think that RUNEYARD SHOPPING CENTER and Fred Sahadi, Appellants, v. Michael ROBINS et al. was clearly unconstitutionally ruled by the supreme court ?

If it can apply to a private university campus, it is almost in a trivial way certainly not a silly argument in the case of something like Twitter, one people can disagree with for sure, but silly ?

As it is, that's relevant to Elon Musk's would-be purchase — he was ostensibly trying to buy Twitter to make it more of a free speech haven.
Exactly, free speech a world an since at least antiquity subject/debate, not just the part protected by the American federal government via the first amendment (that change a lot from decade to decade, just look at the supreme court first amendment interpretation during WW1 versus people speaking against the war effort, using the American federal governement guidance for something like Free Speech is a really limited and I think a bizarre reflex).
 

Aurelius

2[H]4U
Joined
Mar 22, 2003
Messages
3,963
I don't believe I ever mentioned the First Amendment.
If you're touching on that argument, you're touching on the First Amendment. The proponents insist that Twitter et. al. are violating free speech rights (and particularly the First Amendment) by not carrying absolutely everything that isn't otherwise illegal.
 

Axman

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jul 13, 2005
Messages
14,296
If you're touching on that argument, you're touching on the First Amendment. The proponents insist that Twitter et. al. are violating free speech rights (and particularly the First Amendment) by not carrying absolutely everything that isn't otherwise illegal.

No I'm not. I'm talking about the concept of the town square. It might have been a concept before Marshall McLuhan (name drop) but he made it famous.

That issue is Section 230 territory. We don't need 230 reform, either, we just need 230 enforced.
 

Nobu

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jun 7, 2007
Messages
8,670
If you're touching on that argument, you're touching on the First Amendment. The proponents insist that Twitter et. al. are violating free speech rights (and particularly the First Amendment) by not carrying absolutely everything that isn't otherwise illegal.
I generally hear other laws mentioned, wrt protection of the press or publisher, when talking about what a company may do to hosted content created by users. That said, generally I'm of the opinion that if the company is responsible for the content, then they are free to moderate it themselves. And if the users are responsible (er, liable) for the content, then companies shouldn't be censoring it (except as required by law).

That's just my personal opinion, though.
 

staknhalo

2[H]4U
Joined
Jun 11, 2007
Messages
3,071
If you're touching on that argument, you're touching on the First Amendment. The proponents insist that Twitter et. al. are violating free speech rights (and particularly the First Amendment) by not carrying absolutely everything that isn't otherwise illegal.

I could have sworn the problem was them overtly and obviously censoring anything not in line with one narrow and rigid ideology they all happen to share (overall people/culture at Twitter and fellow ideological users)

I don't recall people wanting to make Twitter carry kiddie porn or something...
 

Aurelius

2[H]4U
Joined
Mar 22, 2003
Messages
3,963
Yes free speech, not first amendment (American tend to conflate the 2 and now that cultural practice seem to have spread worldwide)

And I really doubt that considering the supreme court in the past did give the right to the state to force them to do so:

Saying that this:

First Amendment​

First Amendment Explained

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.


How does that Explicitly protect private companies from say the state of California (or Delaware if that would be the relevant ruler in the case of Twitter) to force a private university, commercial center or twitter to accept to host speech that they do not like, do you think that RUNEYARD SHOPPING CENTER and Fred Sahadi, Appellants, v. Michael ROBINS et al. was clearly unconstitutionally ruled by the supreme court ?

If it can apply to a private university campus, it is almost in a trivial way certainly not a silly argument in the case of something like Twitter, one people can disagree with for sure, but silly ?

Free speech and the First Amendment aren't necessarily one and the same, but it's no secret that many of the proponents of forcing Twitter/Facebook/Google to carry content often refer directly to the 1A when making their claims.

As it is, the protections are fairly clear. The 1A bars Congress from passing laws that restrict free speech; it doesn't bar all companies from deciding what speech they carry. The Pruneyard ruling alllows for "reasonable exercises" in shopping centers, not any semi-public venue using any format you want. There would need to be another legal test that authoritatively expands the Pruneyard decision to digital venues, and I wouldn't count on that happening.
 

staknhalo

2[H]4U
Joined
Jun 11, 2007
Messages
3,071
Free speech and the First Amendment aren't necessarily one and the same, but it's no secret that many of the proponents of forcing Twitter/Facebook/Google to carry content often refer directly to the 1A when making their claims.

As it is, the protections are fairly clear. The 1A bars Congress from passing laws that restrict free speech; it doesn't bar all companies from deciding what speech they carry. The Pruneyard ruling alllows for "reasonable exercises" in shopping centers, not any semi-public venue using any format you want. There would need to be another legal test that authoritatively expands the Pruneyard decision to digital venues, and I wouldn't count on that happening.

Free speech is often used to refer to the idea of 'freedom of expression', as seen in societies and ideologies outside of and even before America, The Constitution and The First Amendment.

But you, and them, already knew this.
 

LukeTbk

2[H]4U
Joined
Sep 10, 2020
Messages
3,024
As it is, the protections are fairly clear. The 1A bars Congress from passing laws that restrict free speech; it doesn't bar all companies from deciding what speech they carry.
That seem a different statement, the question being can say California or the FCC for them to carry some speech they would like to ban (say Musk buy twitter and decide to ban from it 100% of electric car competitor accounts or anything that point issue with Tesla cars) or that the supreme court would stop them immediately because the 1st amendment explicitly protect company from that ?

he Pruneyard ruling alllows for "reasonable exercises" in shopping centers, not any semi-public venue using any format you want.
Yes and here we could stop going into strawmen territory of the bizarro and talk about semi reasonable exercices of a fully public venue like twitter.

There would need to be another legal test that authoritatively expands the Pruneyard decision to digital venues, and I wouldn't count on that happening.
Since the "Reaganisation" it became less and less likely, but it is a moment those thing change a lot from time to time, in 2040 it would not be necessarily the same and silly it is a strange way to describe that something applying to a mall could not apply to twitter.

Specially when what would apply to twitter are twit that people must actively seek, when people in the mall were exposed to the speech without seeking it.
 

Aurelius

2[H]4U
Joined
Mar 22, 2003
Messages
3,963
I could have sworn the problem was them overtly and obviously censoring anything not in line with one narrow and rigid ideology they all happen to share (overall people/culture at Twitter and fellow ideological users)

I don't recall people wanting to make Twitter carry kiddie porn or something...
A claim that broad is, simply speaking, a lie. It's extremely easy to find viewpoints that disagree with Twitter's assumed stances (for sake of argument, I take it you mean left-wing/pro-science). Hell, I follow multiple conservatives (including a few higher-profile ones) who routinely parrot some of the content that Twitter is supposedly censoring. I don't think Twitter has done a perfect job of moderating content, but it also hasn't created an impenetrable liberal bubble as some on the right claim.
 

staknhalo

2[H]4U
Joined
Jun 11, 2007
Messages
3,071
A claim that broad is, simply speaking, a lie. It's extremely easy to find viewpoints that disagree with Twitter's assumed stances (for sake of argument, I take it you mean left-wing/pro-science). Hell, I follow multiple conservatives (including a few higher-profile ones) who routinely parrot some of the content that Twitter is supposedly censoring. I don't think Twitter has done a perfect job of moderating content, but it also hasn't created an impenetrable liberal bubble as some on the right claim.

I mean you automatically without thinking linking pro-science and the left is just giving it away on your part
 

LukeTbk

2[H]4U
Joined
Sep 10, 2020
Messages
3,024
I mean you automatically without thinking linking pro-science and the left is just giving it away on your part
The same could be said about the hyperbole a bit ridiculous even for the Internet: I could have sworn the problem was them overtly and obviously censoring anything not in line with one narrow and rigid ideology

It is true that the giant anti-science stance also come from some left-winger these days (that always been true too, but it feels that it became stronger in the last 10 year's)
 

Decko87

2[H]4U
Joined
Sep 23, 2007
Messages
2,073
I mean you automatically without thinking linking pro-science and the left is just giving it away on your part

The same could be said about the hyperbole a bit ridiculous even for the Internet: I could have sworn the problem was them overtly and obviously censoring anything not in line with one narrow and rigid ideology

It is true that the giant anti-science stance also come from some left-winger these days (that always been true too, but it feels that it became stronger in the last 10 year's)
What's you're proof? My friend was a manager of Tractor Supply in upstate NY, they had to stop people from buying animal grade Ivermectin during the height of COVID. Pretty sure blue haired Twitter high school teachers weren't buying up all the ivermectin after the vaccine was available. You gonna give me some shit about gender and sex? That all you got?
 

staknhalo

2[H]4U
Joined
Jun 11, 2007
Messages
3,071
Is that not what the people claiming Twitter censors frame it as, versus them asking Twitter to host everything via the first amendment, as was initially stated?
 

LukeTbk

2[H]4U
Joined
Sep 10, 2020
Messages
3,024
What's you're proof? My friend was a manager of Tractor Supply in upstate NY, they had to stop people from buying animal grade Ivermectin during the height of COVID. Pretty sure blue haired Twitter high school teachers weren't buying up all the ivermectin after the vaccine was available. You gonna give me some shit about gender and sex? That all you got?
GMO/Nuclear energy/anti-vaxx is two long time left wings anti-science stance that come to mind, I am not sure what your statement has to do with mine, I never implied (exactly the opposite) that there is not a right-wing sentiment that always and still exist.

Try to do science or report on it about data related to cop shooting, usually any science that will contradict important belief tend to be quite badly received on either side.

I am not sure ivermectin can be classified has anti-science, that something that was pushed by some the biggest experts in the field and giant scientific studies. Regarding COVID maybe just by chance, conservator seem to have many views closer to the latest scientific finding than leftist/liberals

18-MORNING-PERCEPTIONS-articleLarge.png


I am not sure if being wrong by factor above 2000% is anti-science versus just being wrong influenced by anti-scientific fake news they are exposed too which can be hard to distinguish, but in term of anti-science regarding covid, both the left/right is a good example of anti-scientifics rhetoric flying around from both side.
 
Last edited:

Decko87

2[H]4U
Joined
Sep 23, 2007
Messages
2,073
GMO/Nuclear energy/anti-vaxx is two long time left wings anti-science stance that come to mind, I am not sure what your statement has to do with mine, I never implied (exactly the opposite) that there is not a right-wing sentiment that always and still exist.

Try to do science or report on it about data related to cop shooting, usually any science that will contradict important belief tend to be quite badly received on either side.

I am not sure ivermectin can be classified has anti-science, that something that was pushed by some the biggest experts in the field and giant scientific studies. Regarding COVID maybe just by chance, conservator seem to have many views closer to the latest scientific finding than leftist/liberals

View attachment 492976

I am not sure if being wrong by factor above 2000% is anti-science versus just being wrong influenced by anti-scientific fake news they are exposed too which can be hard to distinguish, but in term of anti-science regarding covid, both the left/right is a good example of anti-scientifics rhetoric flying around from both side.
The cop shooting data is contingent on interpretation. Ivermectin was pushed by the right wing, without equivocation. People doing studies on medicine being a potential prophylactic or medicine for covid is one thing. Having a certain group of people actively taking it and it being pushed by right wing media figures before there's any real data on it is another. None of this matters though, you can say whatever you want about Nuclear, the right still doesn't think climate change is a real phenomena that needs dealt with in an appropriate manner. Most on the left are pro GMO we're just not farming sustainably (we're headed for a fertilizer shortage). There was admittedly a time people were against GMO, but I think at the time it was a new thing and people didn't understand what it meant. Anti-vax is absolutely not a left wing ideology.
 

griff30

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jul 15, 2000
Messages
6,949
I hope they sue.
Then it goes to discovery and Twitter's bots, inside trading, monetary political influence, Sycophantic Pro Liberal agendas all comes out, in public.
Twitter is playing Tiddlywinks to Elon's 4D chess.
 

NukeDukem

2[H]4U
Joined
Feb 15, 2011
Messages
2,567
Whether or not Musk prevails in court based on the legal parameters of the agreement, that is one issue. I still wouldn't advertise on or invest in Twitter. If the valuation basis for this publicly traded company is/was fraudulent, even if I just suspected as much as a major investor or advertiser, I am out of there and perhaps looking to sue.
 
Last edited:

staknhalo

2[H]4U
Joined
Jun 11, 2007
Messages
3,071
Ever hear of an intersex person biology man? Love that my posts get removed but no one else's have. Cool cool, cya later.

yeah freak/random genetic mutations of the species and nothing more than that - side effect of chemical biology and evolution

🌈trust science™️🌈
 

Decko87

2[H]4U
Joined
Sep 23, 2007
Messages
2,073
intersex mutations existing do not dispel XX = woman XY = man, just chromosomes/biology man

🌈trust science™️🌈
No but their existence implies that these things aren't so straight forward on occasion, on occasion such incidents occur. Similarly, an incident could potentially occur, on occasion where someone grows up feeling their born sex doesn't match their identity. You're just being ignorant because you hate trans people. Appreciate the rainbow sarcasm though.
 

Axman

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jul 13, 2005
Messages
14,296
just look at the supreme court first amendment interpretation during WW1 versus people speaking against the war effort, using the American federal governement guidance for something like Free Speech is a really limited and I think a bizarre reflex

FWIW, Schenck is considered one of the greatest miscarriages of justice to stem from the courts today. It's right up there with Jacobson and Korematsu, and all three are still wholly or partially on the books.

Saying this on Twitter would get your tweet removed, and possibly your account suspended. Because they use "terms and conditions" for the people they don't like, and "230" for people they do...
 

Nobu

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jun 7, 2007
Messages
8,670
Ever hear of an intersex person biology man? Love that my posts get removed but no one else's have. Cool cool, cya later.
Wasn't just yours, luketbk, pendragon1, and a few others' posts were as well, because they were off topic. Start a new thread.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top