Re: Potentially an interesting legal case
There's an old saying that my right to extend my fist stops just short of your nose. In other words, we do not live in some ideal environment where individual actions have no consequences. We must consider those consequences. I might have a right to extend my fist, you have a right not to be punched in the nose. The limitation on my right is my responsibility to respect yours. Note that word: responsibility. There are no rights without responsibilities. They are opposite sides of the same coin. Our concept of "rights" is essentially one of mutual respect, our laws are simply a delineation of where those rights and responsibilities lie.
One of the SEC's responsibilities is to prevent the share-buying public's rights not to be misled, either deliberately or accidentally, by what's said by people with inside information or decision making powers in the companies whose shares they might buy or own. They do that by placing a responsibility on the people in that position not to make misleading statements, a responsibility that comes with the right to be in that position.
In this particular case Musk's tweets, because of his position in Tesla etc. can induce individuals to spend money in the belief that he will do what he says and those individuals then find themselves out of pocket. His indulgence in what he considers free speech infringes the rights of others. The SEC is trying to prevent damage he causes.
If, of course, he were to completely leave the management of the companies and divest himself of his significant holdings then his tweets would carry no more significance than those of the man in the Clapham Omnibus. Assuming he does not wish to travel in the Clapham Omnibus but to retain his rights to occupy those positions and hold those shares then he needs to respect others' rights and exercise his responsibilities. The SEC's settlement required him to respect those rights. There's no reason to think that his statements will have any less effect now and, therefore, no reason to think that his responsibilities have disappeared.
My alternative suggestion above was that if he wants to keep his rights to tweet whatever he thinks as he thinks and maintain his other rights in regard to the companies then there should be a mechanism whereby he takes personal responsibilities for any damage he causes. I wonder if he would consider that a fair deal.