Judge mocks X for “vapid” argument in Musk’s hate speech lawsuit::Judge to X lawyer: “I’m trying to figure out in my mind how that’s possibly true."

  • conciselyverbose@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    21
    ·
    8 months ago

    Seemingly skeptical of X’s entire argument, Breyer appeared particularly focused on how X intended to prove that the CCDH could have known that its reporting would trigger such substantial financial losses, as the lawsuit hinges on whether the alleged damages were “foreseeable,” NPR reported.

    X’s lawyer, Jon Hawk, argued that when the CCDH joined Twitter in 2019, the group agreed to terms of service that noted those terms could change. So when Musk purchased Twitter and updated rules to reinstate accounts spreading hate speech, the CCDH should have been able to foresee those changes in terms and therefore anticipate that any reporting on spikes in hate speech would cause financial losses.

    According to CNN, this is where Breyer became frustrated, telling Hawk, “I’m trying to figure out in my mind how that’s possibly true, because I don’t think it is.”

    “What you have to tell me is, why is it foreseeable?” Breyer said. “That they should have understood that, at the time they entered the terms of service, that Twitter would then change its policy and allow this type of material to be disseminated?

    “That, of course, reduces foreseeability to one of the most vapid extensions of law I’ve ever heard,” Breyer added. “‘Oh, what’s foreseeable is that things can change, and therefore, if there’s a change, it’s 'foreseeable.’ I mean, that argument is truly remarkable.”

    Ignoring that researching how toxic a toxic shithole is is very clearly not “hacking” and reporting it is first amendment protected speech, so knowing financial harm is coming shouldn’t be relevant in any way:

    What the actual fuck is wrong with this dude?

    • loutr@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      17
      ·
      8 months ago

      My guess is he threw a tantrum and yelled at his lawyers to do something about it, and it’s the best they came up with.

      • conciselyverbose@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        edit-2
        8 months ago

        If you’re a defense attorney, you need to be entitled to any argument no matter how tenuous or ridiculous in order to have due process of law. You can’t be scared an argument will get you in trouble.

        But there needs to be a line for a plaintiff where you at minimum get suspended from any sort of practice of law for a serious length of time for absurdly frivolous arguments, and it needs to be way before this.