Musk can't tweet about Tesla without lawyer approval – and he's still fighting to end that Elon Musk still hopes to quash a 2018 settlement agreement with the SEC requiring Tesla-related tweets to be approved by a lawyer before he can post them: on Wednesday, he took his case to the US Court of Appeals after a lower court denied this request. The Tesla CEO landed himself in hot water with the watchdog when he …
Swap the requirement for one that appoints an arbitration panel to decide the compensation he has to pay to anyone who loses money as a result of his Twitter powered manipulation of share prices. No lawyers involved because the agreement would be to pay what the panel decided so he wouldn't be able to dispute it. No legal fees, therefore, for the claimants; just put the claims to the panel Then the SEC shouldn't be concerned that his tweets affect the share price because the only person losing money would be himself.
It would be a reminder to him of the difference between free as in speech and free as in beer.
I dislike your overlord,but he did get justifiably good publicity for supplying Starlink systems to Ukraine.
Problem: Grain can't be shipped out of Ukraine. Biden plans to build silos on the NATO side of the border and transfer grain from Ukrainian trains to Polish trains. The trains can't go direct;y because different gauge railtracks.
Solution: build a Ukrainian gauge railtrack in Poland!
Can't cost much (in Musk terms), could help stem oncoming global starvation, and that's the sort of good publicity you cannot buy.
Solution: build a Ukrainian gauge railtrack in Poland!
Even if there are risks due to the War, start building a European gauge railtrack in Ukraine instead, as the future of Ukraine is with Europe and not Russia - unless Putin Khuylo succeeds to invade the whole country.
This is probably the wrong time to try and build things in Ukraine, especially things that will benefit the west. Putin has been bombing trains loaded with grain, claiming they were "hiding weapons".
He just wants to maximize starvation in the world to make it more difficult for the west to keep supporting Ukraine on the argument that by prolonging the war we are starving millions.
"The trains can't go direct;y because different gauge railtracks."
There are gauge changers on the Polish border, these are significantly faster than un- and reloading. Until something more effective can be arranged these are a good stop gap solution.
"There are gauge changers on the Polish border,"
Ta for that, I never even imagined variable gauge. They don't yet seem to work with freight trains due to weight, so I'd still go with extra track to get the grain into the NATO umbrella where it is safe to be transferred.
This post has been deleted by its author
Just to provide a little bit of it: the manager at that location had significantly increased the temperature of the coffee above what would be considered "normal", for strategic reasons. The woman in question received severe burns, well beyond what you would get if you spilled coffee you made at home. Also, IIRC, she was only seeking payment of her medical bills and it was the court that decided she deserved a large settlement.
As a video game person, Hot Coffee amuses me as a title for that film :p
Frankly anyone who gets financial advice from twitter deserves what happens....
Placing stock bets based upon what someone says on Twitter - even if it is Musk - is akin to taking all your money to Vegas and betting it all on red. Good chance you will win big. Same chance you will lose it all.
Need an icon for 'a Fool and his Money'....
The US constitution was written by great men, unlike in Europe where the medieval concept of rulers being special people still lingers around in many laws, discriminating normal people against people who are part of the ruling elites.
The first amendment of the Bill of rights says https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/amendment-1/
First Amendment
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
The free speech Mr. Musk can exercise is limited by the governmental institution SEC, this seems to contradict the rights granted by the First Amendment.
It will be interesting to watch if Mr. Musk will take this to the Supreme Court.
The 2nd Amendment is not a problem.
People not getting prompt treatment for mental health issues is
and
nearly all 'mass shootings' take place in gun free zones; shocking that criminals don't obey laws....
There was a recent incident which would have turned into a 'mass shooting' but didn't because a citizen exercising her constitutional right to legally carry shot the gunman.
The 2nd ammendment wasn't too big of a problem until it started being misinterpreted several decades ago. But now it needs to go as it's a major impediment to any sensible gun laws. While you're at it you might as well pass amendments clarifying that corporations are not people and that money is not free speech.
Those 3 are the root of so many of the problems in the USA.
My local Walmart stopped selling firearms just to avoid the attention.
And what does Wally-world have to do with it anyway? When they did sell firearms they had to follow the exact same procedures for background check & government approval as the dedicated firearms shop down the street.
You are delusional if you thought Walmart ever sold firearms any other way. Complete the government approval paperwork in sporting goods. Get escorted by an employee carrying the boxed & locked firearm to the cash register. Get escorted to your vehicle. Receive possession at that time. Get watched as you secure the firearm in your vehicle. This is far more than the local gun shop does, they will hand over the firearm immediately.
It is not like Walmart had shotguns on the grab-n-buy rack at the U-scan. Sheesh.
US constitution is the greatest there is, there is no place in the world where a constitution grants more rights to its citizens than in the USA. These rights include fighting its government when it becomes a tyranny.
The second amendment makes all people equal for the law in the way they can defend their life and that of their family. In Europe mortals are supposed to pray for mercy when they are being subjected to violence.
The elites in Europe do not have this problem, they have armed men around who in their name, can exercise Second Amendment rights for them.
The absence of Second Amendment rights is therefore discriminatory towards normal citizens, the law only allows elites access to weapons for self protection.
You do realise the US government has drones?
Why are so many Americans delusional, and paranoid that everyone wants to kill them, and they are some Rambo character who can save the world?
Silly incels. You wouldn't last 5 minutes in a "mad max" or "the purge" dystopian world.
>The free speech Mr. Musk can exercise is limited by the governmental institution SEC
Not at all. He was free to refuse and accept the consequences. He chose not to do that. Reading the excerpts from court's judgement in the article makes clear the judge's undisguised contempt for this self-serving line of argumentation.
Exactly. In fact, NOT enforcing this would take away a valuable right of the accused. Clearly Elon's laywer's deemed this to be the least punitive of the available options for his settlement. If the government could not legally secure an agreement from an individual not to make certain statements, then the government must pursue another form of punishment or bond which in all likelihood would be more punitive.
By accepting the agreement, Elon also accepted the validity of the agreement, and that it was in his best interest to accept the agreement. He certainly had it reviewed by council, so he cannot make the claim that there was not a meeting of the minds on it. QED, he cannot challenge it (except on the basis that it required HIM to do something illegal, which it clearly doesn't).
I think some people take offence to the idea that one of the signatories of the contract is a public entity. Perhaps more generally, they do not like that the original fraud charges were based on his speech. I don't agree with either of these criticisms (yelling fire in a crowded theater is a well discussed counter-point), but I understand them.
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.
It sounds all nice what you wrote, poor shareholders need to be protected against tweets of people who have a leadership role in the companies in which they have a stake.
Firstly, Mr. Musk is not Tesla, he is a human being, citizen of the USA who should be free to exercise the rights granted to him by the constitution. The fact Mr. Musk is not someone in the Clapham bus, does not imply he is robbed of all the freedoms other people enjoy. What you say would imply that when Mr. Musk falls in love with a Ferrari and buys it instantly, he could be fined by the SEC for doing something that influences the stock price without prior announcement.
Second, in order to avert the impeding meltdown of the democrats in November, the Biden administration has totally politized the DoJ, whose task it is to jail and harass as many political opponents as possible. Mr. Musk is therefore running a high risk to be constantly targeted by Federal institutions who want him to silence up "or else". Defending the first amendment rights prevents situations like they occurred in Russia, where rich businessmen get life sentence in a Siberian jail for opposing the government.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
