Accusations of Pedophilia and U.S. Law

[Revoltingest]

That doesn't accurately represent my position.

Nonetheless, I see us focusing upon different aspects of it.

I see risks too; I just don't think they entail throwing the baby out with the bathwater and scrapping defamation convictions altogether.

We'll agree to disagree about the net value of
criminalizing defamation.
I note that many posters on RF could be prosecuted
for violating such a law. Bad idea IMO.

Thanks. That helps.

However, it seems excessively hard to win a defamation case considering that Musk publicly made the initial accusation (which he claimed was just an "insult"), doubled down on it by calling the diver a "child rapist" in an email, and also hired a "private investigator" (reportedly a convicted felon) to try to find anything against the diver:

Elon Musk reportedly hired a convicted felon with a shady past to investigate the British diver he once called a 'pedo'

An aide to Elon Musk hired a private investigator to look into the diver Musk called a 'pedo guy'

If such a case wasn't ruled in favor of the plaintiff, which case could be? What more evidence would be needed than the above?

I can't answer those questions.

 

[Debater Slayer]

We'll agree to disagree about the net value of
criminalizing defamation.
I note that many posters on RF could be prosecuted
for violating such a law. Bad idea IMO.

RF members

- are entirely anonymous (save for some exceptions)

- post in a relatively unknown space, as opposed to a social media site with an audience of hundreds of millions; and finally

- don't accuse other members of pedophilia, or at least nobody has done so in my 11 years here.

As you can see, it would be basically impossible for a defamation case to catch on given the absence of the damaging aspects. Plus RF rules take care of personal accusations, rendering them invisible before any damage could occur anyway.

But I'm not sure I'm clear on your view. Are you in favor of eliminating defamation laws altogether? Because even the U.S. has those.

 

[Revoltingest]

RF members

- are entirely anonymous (save for some exceptions)

- post in a relatively unknown space, as opposed to a social media site with an audience of hundreds of millions; and finally

- don't accuse other members of pedophilia, or at least nobody has done so in my 11 years here.

Those objections really miss the point that prosecuting
people for defamation would open up a whole new
field for government, prosecutors, courts, & lawyers.
- Defamation can be for accusations other than pedophilia.
- Some statements on RF have been defamatory, yet
not all even result in official sanction of any kind.
Yet in the real world, they could result in criminal prosecution.

This strikes me as excessive.
I've no faith that our government would use such power
to increase the quality of life. I'd expect otherwise.

We've had a spate of attempts to illegalize insulting cops.
Fortunately, our Constitution's 1st Amendment treats this
as protected speech. We also had a case awhile back
where a couple were arrested & jailed for insulting Bill
Clinton. They were never prosecuted, but such arrests
are a useful tool even when no prosecution is possible.
It sends the message that you can be inconvenienced
& even brutalized for non-crimes.

You trust our government (Clinton, Bush, Trump, Biden,
etc) more than I do, eh.

 

[Debater Slayer]

Those objections really miss the point that prosecuting
people for defamation would open up a whole new
field for government, prosecutors, courts, & lawyers.
- Defamation can be for accusations other than pedophilia.
- Some statements on RF have been defamatory, yet
not all even result in official sanction of any kind.
Yet in the real world, they could result in criminal prosecution.

This strikes me as excessive.
I've no faith that our government would use such power
to increase the quality of life. I'd expect otherwise.

We've had a spate of attempts to illegalize insulting cops.
Fortunately, our Constitution's 1st Amendment treats this
as protected speech. We also had a case awhile back
where a couple were arrested & jailed for insulting Bill
Clinton. They were never prosecuted, but such arrests
are a useful tool even when no prosecution is possible.
It sends the message that you can be inconvenienced
& even brutalized for non-crimes.

You trust our government (Clinton, Bush, Trump, Biden,
etc) more than I do, eh.

As I said earlier, I believe it's possible to go after damaging acts of defamation without overreaching. Actually, I'd say the American police is an example that the state can be abusive toward civilians and arrest them on shaky or downright unjustifiable grounds without the need to invoke defamation laws at all.

I don't have much more to say about this, other than to emphasize my belief that a damaging accusation like a public one involving claims of pedophilia should indeed be grounds for prosecution in any reasonable legal system.

 

[Revoltingest]

As I said earlier, I believe it's possible to go after damaging acts of defamation without overreaching.

It's certainly possible that it could be beneficial.
But I judge the other possibilities as too risky.

Actually, I'd say the American police is an example that the state can be abusive toward civilians and arrest them on shaky or downright unjustifiable grounds without the need to invoke defamation laws at all.

Yet you'd give these cops the power to arrest
people for slander, libel, & insults.

I don't have much more to say about this, other than to emphasize my belief that a damaging accusation like a public one involving claims of pedophilia should indeed be grounds for prosecution in any reasonable legal system.

I disagree about what you find "reasonable".

 

[Subduction Zone]

Aye, Musk should've paid him damages.
What a turd of a person Musk is.

I will agree with the latter only. Yep, Musk is a turd of a person. But both people were being rather rude in this discussion. And they both went outside of twitter. Unsworth would have to prove that supposed damages were caused by Musk and not the stupid public argument. I think that a very good case could be made for the latter.

 

[Debater Slayer]

It's certainly possible that it could be beneficial.
But I judge the other possibilities as too risky.

Yet you'd give these cops the power to arrest
people for slander, libel, & insults.

I disagree about what you find "reasonable".

Th sky hasn't fallen in the developed countries that do allow prosecution for slander and libel. The bad examples of implementing such laws (e.g., China and Russia) often involve skipping of due process and arbitrary charges based on other laws either way, which underlines that a corrupt system is the main issue rather than defamation laws per se.

There have been defamation cases in the U.S. where the verdicts favored the plaintiffs. For instance:

$38.3 Million Jury Verdict in Internet Defamation Case

Jury Awards Record-Breaking $274 Million in Manchester Billboard Defamation Case

Does that worry you, or do you see it as justice served?

 

[Debater Slayer]

I will agree with the latter only. Yep, Musk is a turd of a person. But both people were being rather rude in this discussion. And they both went outside of twitter. Unsworth would have to prove that supposed damages were caused by Musk and not the stupid public argument. I think that a very good case could be made for the latter.

What are your thoughts on the links I posted in post #39, which reported that Musk had hired a "private investigator" (reportedly a convicted felon) to dig up dirt on Unsworth?

 

[Subduction Zone]

What are your thoughts on the links I posted in post #39, which reported that Musk had hired a "private investigator" (reportedly a convicted felon) to dig up dirt on Unsworth?

I would need to know the timeline of events. Was this done after the "pedo" (I laugh every time I see that term since it means "fart" in Spanish, so I see that Elon Musk called him the fart guy) According to the article the private investigator contacted Musk. This may hurt Unsworth's claim more than it helps. If the investigator investigated Unsworth in the past he may have dug up some dirt on him. Which would mean that the charge was not slander in the first place. It does not look like Musk went shopping for someone to look up dirt on him. If you could show that then you might have a case.

 

[Debater Slayer]

I would need to know the timeline of events. Was this done after the "pedo" (I laugh every time I see that term since it means "fart" in Spanish, so I see that Elon Musk called him the fart guy) According to the article the private investigator contacted Musk. This may hurt Unsworth's claim more than it helps. If the investigator investigated Unsworth in the past he may have dug up some dirt on him. Which would mean that the charge was not slander in the first place. It does not look like Musk went shopping for someone to look up dirt on him. If you could show that then you might have a case.

It seems more likely to me that if the investigator indeed approached Musk, it was to seek profit and publicity, since Musk couldn't prove any of the accusations against Unsworth.

Nevertheless, this link states that Musk hired the investigator without mentioning any initial contact from the latter's side:

Elon Musk reportedly hired a convicted felon with a shady past to investigate the British diver he once called a 'pedo'

But let's put aside this case for a moment. Even if we agree, for the sake of argument, that Musk did nothing damaging to Unsworth, do you believe that defamation should be valid grounds for conviction if proven to have caused damage to the defamed party--such as getting them fired from a job or leading to their being socially ostracized?

 

[Revoltingest]

I will agree with the latter only. Yep, Musk is a turd of a person. But both people were being rather rude in this discussion. And they both went outside of twitter. Unsworth would have to prove that supposed damages were caused by Musk and not the stupid public argument. I think that a very good case could be made for the latter.

Tis an issue where reasonable people can disagree....even the 2 of us.

 

[Revoltingest]

Th sky hasn't fallen in the developed countries that do allow prosecution for slander and libel. The bad examples of implementing such laws (e.g., China and Russia) often involve skipping of due process and arbitrary charges based on other laws either way, which underlines that a corrupt system is the main issue rather than defamation laws per se.

There have been defamation cases in the U.S. where the verdicts favored the plaintiffs. For instance:

$38.3 Million Jury Verdict in Internet Defamation Case

Jury Awards Record-Breaking $274 Million in Manchester Billboard Defamation Case

Does that worry you, or do you see it as justice served?

I've nothing to add.

 

[Debater Slayer]

I've nothing to add.

I was just asking for your opinion on the two verdicts I cited, since they happened in defamation cases in American courts.

I don't have anything else to add either.

 

[Revoltingest]

I was just asking for your opinion on the two verdicts I cited, since they happened in defamation cases in American courts.

I don't have anything else to add either.

I'm unfamiliar with those court cases.

 

[Debater Slayer]

I'm unfamiliar with those court cases.

Fair enough.

Have a nice afternoon/evening.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Edit: I added a couple of links in post #39 clarifying that Musk had hired a "private investigator" to dig up dirt on Unsworth, which seems to me to be clear evidence that Musk meant the claim seriously and wasn't merely insulting Unsworth.

To me that just makes it look more petty. PIs have even looked into Cobain's suicide because people are so convinced Courtney Love killed him.

 

[Debater Slayer]

To me that just makes it look more petty. PIs have even looked into Cobain's suicide because people are so convinced Courtney Love killed him.

Not sure I'm getting your point. To me, the fact that Musk went to such lengths as to hire a private investigator shows that he meant the accusation seriously rather than as a mere insult.

Proceeding from that, how or why should we conclude that Musk wasn't guilty of defamation here?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Not sure I'm getting your point. To me, the fact that Musk went to such lengths as to hire a private investigator shows that he meant the accusation seriously rather than as a mere insult.

Proceeding from that, how or why should we conclude that Musk wasn't guilty of defamation here?

People can hire a PI for anything, and Musk has more than enough money to throw around on pointless crap.

 

[Revoltingest]

Edit: I added a couple of links in post #39 clarifying that Musk had hired a "private investigator" to dig up dirt on Unsworth, which seems to me to be clear evidence that Musk meant the claim seriously and wasn't merely insulting Unsworth.

Or Musk's investigator found nothing unsavory,
but he just lashed out anyway with the repeated
pedophilia claims meant to harm Unsworth.

Possibility...
Musk was projecting his own impure thoughts
about children.