21 Jan 2023 12:03 pm
I would probably have to see the wording of the tweet before I could say either way.Vegas » 21 Jan 2023, 12:43 pm » wrote: ↑ Musk's began his testimony for civil securities fraud. Interesting case, in my opinion. On one hand, he has a first amendment right. He has free speech, just like everyone else. So, he should be able to tweet whatever he wants, without legal repercussions. On the other, not all speech is free. We can't prank call 911, shout bomb in an airport, yell fire in a movie theater, threaten to harm/kill someone, or anything that could directly lead to mass chaos. With that said, did Musk's tweet lead to mass chaos, since it wasn't true?
Actually, yes. It did. People suffered a loss of billions because of it. Now we could say, well that's the shareholder's fault for believing him. They should have done their own research. Not in this case. There is a certain level of faith and trust that is required. We can't go around researching every damn thing that comes our way. People still have to live their lives. He violated the trust of the public.
Discuss.
My first thought in a case like this is caveat emptor.
Nobody forced the shareholders to buy or hold the stock in the first place. That would be the starting point for me.
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people