Liberal Forum

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.

Musk, the chief executive of Tesla and Twitter, was called to testify on the third day of a three-week trial in which shareholders allege they suffered billions worth of financial harm and steep losses from a false claim that he had financing to take Tesla off the public markets

Vegas » 21 Jan 2023, 12:43 pm » wrote: ↑

21 Jan 2023, 12:43 pm

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.

I would probably have to see the wording of the tweet before I could say either way.

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.
 

You can't yell fire in a movie theater but you can try to incite a bunch of peaceful protesters to storm the US capital

Ray Epps taught us that

RedheadedStranger » 21 Jan 2023, 1:03 pm » wrote: ↑

21 Jan 2023, 1:03 pm

I would probably have to see the wording of the tweet before I could say either way.

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.

You are right . . . to a point.

Did this person (who is the most influential person regarding that stock) make a statement
that could be construed as a valid direction for that company?
Stock trading is predicting the future based on information at hand after all.
Is Mr. Tesla's mere utterance about the company considered information?

DeezerShoove » 21 Jan 2023, 2:36 pm » wrote: ↑

21 Jan 2023, 2:36 pm

You are right . . . to a point.

Did this person (who is the most influential person regarding that stock) make a statement
that could be construed as a valid direction for that company?
Stock trading is predicting the future based on information at hand after all.
Is Mr. Tesla's mere utterance about the company considered information?

That's why I said I would need to see what he tweeted first.

It would also have to be determined if the tweet was considered an official statement or Musk just pontificating on social media I would think. 

It also brings up the question... if Musk had just made a move with his company without saying a word about it, and investors lost money, could they still sue him for losing their investment?

It's a difficult one to call for sure. My BIL is a financial/real estate attorney, so I would probably check with him before nailing down a final opinion. 

 

​​​
 
 

Musk claimed that he was likely to take the Tesla Company private...knowing that he lacked the financial ability to do so.
This caused shareholders to lose money.
Perhaps the goal was to devalue the stock to make buying back shares easier for him to do.
This sounds rather like fraud to me.

Tesla stock is HUGELY overvalued. by the way, according to people whose advice I respect.

Musk would let tens of millions die if it made him money.

PastorBlast » 21 Jan 2023, 4:06 pm » wrote: ↑

21 Jan 2023, 4:06 pm

Musk would let tens of millions die if it made him money.

Much worse than the EVIL George Soros!      
 

It does not appear to me than Musk taking over Twitter was a wise move for Musk, and certainly did not do Twitter or its employees any good , either.

Xavier_Onassis » 21 Jan 2023, 6:28 pm » wrote: ↑

21 Jan 2023, 6:28 pm

 

silence you aids ***
 
 

RedheadedStranger » 21 Jan 2023, 1:03 pm » wrote: ↑

21 Jan 2023, 1:03 pm

I would probably have to see the wording of the tweet before I could say either way.

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.

True, but the shareholders had truthful information to inform themselves before they bought into the stock. Musk tweeted something that wasn't true, and the shareholders believed him. I mean, why wouldn't they? Thus, the shareholders responded to what they were led to believe. Consequently, billions of shareholder dollars were lost.

DeezerShoove » 21 Jan 2023, 2:36 pm » wrote: ↑

21 Jan 2023, 2:36 pm

Is Mr. Tesla's mere utterance about the company considered information?

Yes. He tweeted that funding was secured (from some arab raghead), thus Tesla would no longer be a public exchange. That was untrue. The Arab raghead never secured it, it was just conversation they were having. Consequently, shareholders lost billions when selling their stock off. 

Xavier_Onassis » 21 Jan 2023, 6:28 pm » wrote: ↑

21 Jan 2023, 6:28 pm

It does not appear to me than Musk taking over Twitter was a wise move for Musk, and certainly did not do Twitter or its employees any good , either.

Well, your agenda driven opinion and two dollars will get you some **** coffee at starbucks. 

Vegas » 21 Jan 2023, 10:28 pm » wrote: ↑

21 Jan 2023, 10:28 pm

Yes. He tweeted that funding was secured (from some arab raghead), thus Tesla would no longer be a public exchange. That was untrue. The Arab raghead never secured it, it was just conversation they were having. Consequently, shareholders lost billions when selling their stock off.

It's possible when he made the tweet, he had low blood sugar.

This whole kerfuffle could have been averted by a Snickers bar. Now everyone in hangry. 
 

RedheadedStranger » 21 Jan 2023, 1:03 pm » wrote: ↑

21 Jan 2023, 1:03 pm

I would probably have to see the wording of the tweet before I could say either way.

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.
 

Mine too. Whiny babies seek to be made whole by others, after gambling their money and loosing it. Same thing could have happened as a result of a surprise bad earnings report.

Vegas » 21 Jan 2023, 12:43 pm » wrote: ↑

21 Jan 2023, 12:43 pm

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.

Wrong.  The First Amendment addresses free speech as it relates only to government action to restrict free speech.  Nobody has free speech tweet rights.  Internet social networking platforms are private businesses.  The owners have no legal or constitutional duty to allow anybody to say anything they want to say on an internet platform.  If the owners don't like what the member puts up, the post can be removed and, if the ownership is so inclined, the member can be banned from the platform.  There are no free speech rights on an internet platform.

Does this case have anything to do with government infringement of anybody's free speech or free expression?  No it does not.

How many times do you stoopid polack cocksuckers have to be told this?
 
 

IkeBana » 22 Jan 2023, 9:18 am » wrote: ↑

22 Jan 2023, 9:18 am

Wrong.  The First Amendment addresses free speech as it relates only to government action to restrict free speech.  Nobody has free speech tweet rights.  Internet social networking platforms are private businesses.  The owners have no legal or constitutional duty to allow anybody to say anything they want to say on an internet platform.  If the owners don't like what the member puts up, the post can be removed and, if the ownership is so inclined, the member can be banned from the platform.  There are no free speech rights on an internet platform.

How many times do you stoopid polack cocksuckers have to be told this?

so those owners of social media sites are anti free speech. Seems they may be from China

IkeBana » 22 Jan 2023, 9:18 am » wrote: ↑

22 Jan 2023, 9:18 am

How many times do you stoopid polack cocksuckers have to be told this?

Damn... and you called me a racist homophobe?

 

FJB » 22 Jan 2023, 9:19 am » wrote: ↑

22 Jan 2023, 9:19 am

so those owners of social media sites are anti free speech. Seems they may be from China

The owners of social media platforms are pro-private business rights, if you feel the operating rights as a proprietor of a private business should be under the control of the government you are one **** up conservative.  If you run a social network internet platform do you think the government should be able to tell you how you can manage member participation on your social network platform?  If you do, you're a stoopid **** polack...although we already know that.

If a private business owner is breaking any laws, then the government should step in.  But if a private business owner is controlling the language on an internet platform, or the language being used by workers or customers in a place of business, the owner is completely within his or her rights, and the government has nothing to say about it.

**** Justin Bieber
 
 

IkeBana » 22 Jan 2023, 9:58 am » wrote: ↑

22 Jan 2023, 9:58 am

The owners of social media platforms are pro-private business rights, if you feel the operating rights as a proprietor of a private business should be under the control of the government you are one **** up conservative.  If you run a social network internet platform do you think the government should be able to tell you how you can manage member participation on your social network platform?  If you do, you're a stoopid **** polack...although we already know that.

If a private business owner is breaking any laws, then the government should step in.  But if a private business owner is controlling the language on an internet platform, or the language being used by workers or customers in a place of business, the owner is completely within his or her rights, and the government has nothing to say about it.

**** Justin Bieber

You don't get the point... the owners are anti free speech. PERIOD