Crackerjack legal genius Elon Musk currently blundered his method into investing $44 billion to run Twitter into the ground. Now he’s back, shooting off legal hazards to the Anti-Defamation League for disparaging him for “falsely accusing [the platform] & me of being anti-Semitic.”
Even though both are completely non-defamatory viewpoint claims.
Defamation normally needs (1) publication of a declaration of truth that is (2) incorrect and (3) triggers some defamatory damage.
Musk, who is “pro free speech,” is distinctly anti totally free speech that mentions his reform of Twitter’s guidelines led to “both an increase in antisemitic content on the platform and a decrease in the moderation of antisemitic posts.” Which is an accurate claim by the ADL, however one that likewise appears to be not incorrect, positioning a deadly issue for Musk’s threatened suit. And that’s prior to reaching the concern that the ramification — or perhaps a specific declaration — that this implies Twitter (or X or whatever the hell it is) and Musk are anti-Semitic would be a viewpoint claim that cannot form the basis of a character assassination fit.
This all turned up after X users got #BanTheADL trending on the platform and Musk leapt in to ask if he should run a poll on the question. Apparently this was all the hook Musk required to assert that:
Our United States marketing earnings is still down 60%, mostly due to push on marketers by @ADL (that’s what marketers inform us), so they nearly prospered in eliminating X/Twitter!
I’ll take “things that never happened for $400, Ken.” Revenue is certainly down, however it’s down because X is coming down into a Stromfront remark board. To the degree leaving marketers have actually discussed ADL at all, it’s to flag ADL as simply among numerous messengers indicating unpleasant information about the platform.
But you can’t shoot the messenger and you certainly can’t state the messenger libelled you for bring the message.
On the other hand, an entity definitely can — in specific states — take legal action against somebody for utilizing phony legal hazards in an effort to silence the speaker through intimidation.
There’s no chance to forecast whether the ADL will provide the anti-SLAPP “FO” to Musk’s “FA,” however it’s still most likely a great reason Musk should seek advice from attorneys prior to spouting off more frequently, huh?
Elon Musk threatens to take legal action against Anti-Defamation League over antisemitism claims [CBS]
Joe Patrice is a senior editor at Above the Law and co-host of Thinking Like A Lawyer. Feel totally free to email any ideas, concerns, or remarks. Follow him on Twitter if you’re interested in law, politics, and a healthy dosage of college sports news. Joe likewise acts as a Managing Director at RPN Executive Search.
For more of the most recent in lawsuits, guideline, offers and monetary services patterns, register for Finance Docket, a collaboration in between Breaking Media publications Above the Law and Dealbreaker.
