If you were unfairly treated by your employer due to posting or liking something on this platform, we will fund your legal bill.
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) August 6, 2023
No limit.
Please let us know.
August 6, 2023
Elon Musk will pay your legal bills.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
49 comments:
How binding is that offer on Musk and X?
Does the condition “were unfairly treated” take that offer out of the realm of a standing offer of unilateral contract encompassing all future occurrences?
The fact (sic) that someone can and has been disciplined (and fired) for a non-work related event demonstrates the fall to totalitarianism.
On the other hand…is musk saying it doesn’t happen, so he’s pretty much immune from anyone taking up the offer? Put up or shut up?
Maybe Noah Gragson should contact him. NASCAR cup driver fired for "liking" a meme about St. George of Fentanyl.
If the settlement includes legal costs this could turn into a real money earner!
A true Free Speech champion. And he has the cash to do it.
A Great American; born in Africa.
Sounds good but if you were an at-will employee fired by a private company because they didn't like your post, good luck recovering anything. I know people here tend to forget, but private companies have first amendment rights too. If they think you're a jerk (prob because you are), bye bye.
How’s about “X” first pays its rent in San Francisco, and its own employees that Musk wrongfully terminated, before dabbling in outside litigation?
The left hate free speech. The left hate Musk.
Does “this platform” only include the current X platform or does it also include the old Twitter platform? In any case, if “unfairly” means as determined by the court, he would only have to pay the legal bills of people who win their cases, not of those who lose.
Very cool.
Very cool.
Oh yeah, he’s a real man of his word. So say his two ex-wives, seven baby-mamas, twelve course-corrections on whether he’d really go through with the Twitter purchase and bans galore once he was actually forced to close the deal on it. And he censors whatever Erdogan, Modi and other despots ask him to censor with nary a peep and closed down Alex Jones. He also closed down anyone who even mentions the kid who published his flight logs, and probably anyone who doesn’t sign off with the premium service that can’t stop his dumpster fire from hemorrhaging cash.
He was spawned by an emerald mine owner in an apartheid state and is an absolutist about one thing and one thing only: His pathetic ego. Republicons think he will “save” them and their phony cause because just like Musk, they’re immoral outcasts who can’t see beyond their own eyelashes and will say anything to anyone as long as it gets them attention. Neither one can have legitimacy so they seek attention instead as a substitute.
stlcdr: "The fact (sic) that someone can and has been disciplined (and fired) for a non-work related event demonstrates the fall to totalitarianism."
Fatty Arbuckle might talk with you about that. As might Gary Hart. And many others. It isn't totalitarianism to realize that your work product can be seriously affected by your extracurricular activities. I, for one, try not to hire serial killers as subcontractors, despite never having been killed yet.
Anyone who liked the Old Government surveillance Twitter doesn't understand anything about X
I know people here tend to forget, but private companies have first amendment rights too. If they think you're a jerk (prob because you are), bye bye.
They don’t forget - that would entail remembering any rational values that they ever had in the first place. Which of course they never did.
Most conservatives are authoritarians as long as that gets them closer to their social and hierarchical goals. Like loyalists to George III, they see Elon Musk and Ron DeSatan and Trump as saviors who will somehow force corporations to bend to their will by pretending that unpopular speech is popular, let alone profitable.
Putin’s hardest-line supporters agree with him that the fall of the USSR was the world’s greatest tragedy, even though he himself is a capitalist oligarch. Conservative authoritarians have no ideology and will switch from anarchist to commie and back overnight, under the right charlatan promising them national and personal glory.
Jim addresses reality. At will employment states can fire you for it and no lawyer can change that.
That said, the Rainbowland teacher from Waukesha should send all her legal bills to Elon, as she was fired over a Tweet.
The Left/LLR-Left (you know who you are) are NOT going to like this one bit.
Musk says >> poches profondes [pl f] c'est moi
Musk appears to have an extraordinary sense of fair play.
No wonder the lefties hate him.
Does that offer include his own employees?
Unfairly
Five or six years ago I had a pending job offer at a university retracted at the last minute. One of the senior professors in the department had some suspicions that I might be a conservative, and then I saw he followed me on Twitter. I didn't have anything too objectively controversial, but I'm sure there was enough there that he went to the Dean and said we don't want this guy. Of course there's no cause for legal action, and I'm probably better off not going into a situation with people like that (which is probably true of almost any university nowadays).
It would only take one or two high profile lawsuits to tamp down indiscriminate terminations.
"bill", singular.
A nascar driver was suspended maybe permanently for liking a George Floyd meme.
Elon is putting his pocket book behind what he says, behind free speech.
In contrast, the other side is plotting to damage your financial credit or shut off access to banks if you say the wrong thing.
Here’s talk of that very thing in Britain: “Neil Farage, the former Brexit party and Ukip leader who is now a presenter on GB News, claimed last week that he was considering leaving Britain because he had been told by his bank that his accounts were being shut down.”
link to Farage story
Is the “Twitter” tag deadnaming?
I don’t want my Google account deactivated for commenting here 😉
Musk reminds me of Citizen Kane. I think he bought Twitter because he thought it would be fun!
I like people who like to have fun, and who are open about it.
Here's another billionaire, Donald Trump, on Citizen Kane.
"Maybe wealth isn't everything. Because he had the wealth, but not the happiness."
This is the single greatest act in defense of the public expression of private conscience since Luther nailed his Theses to the door of Wittenberg's All Saints Church. Nor has a private fortune been devoted so bravely to the public weal.
Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns or figs of thistles? Even so, every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit. A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit. Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire. Wherefore by their fruits, ye shall know them.
Expect your most deadly enemies to snicker and jeer.
Vladimir Putin won't be among them.
Incredible. This is putting your money where your mouth is regarding free-speech. The potential for putting the screws to the woke establishment or any establishment for that matter is vast.
jim5301 said...
Sounds good but if you were an at-will employee fired by a private company because they didn't like your post, good luck recovering anything
yes, but.. IF you are hired "at-will", then; you Aren't being unfairly treated by your employer due to posting or liking something on this platform. You aren't being let go for ANY reason.. You're just being let go*.
let go* which would mean they'd HAVE to pay you unemployment; Since you WEREN'T terminated for "cause"**.
If they refused to pay unemployment.. Whole new ballgame.
for "cause"** gilbar spent the last few years of his career mumbling to himself: Don't let them fire you for "cause".. GET that unemployment! Instead, he worked until he retired, at which point the company offered to keep him on, but he was out the door
Bring back the 60s!!!
That popping sound you hear are lefty heads exploding. The only person the left hates more than Trump is Musk.
" I know people here tend to forget, but private companies have first amendment rights too."
We're here for everyones free speech rights. You seem to forget that.
He's making this offer, when Trump and all of us are under the threat of silence or punishment.
We'll timed.
From what I've seen on "X", several people have already reached out to Musk regarding his offer. He has responded to several and it seems they have taken their communications to DM. So it appears Musk was serious about his offer. I was suspended from Twitter three years ago so deleted my account and I can't see all the interactions posted but it looks as if (from the limited amount I can review) that Musk is getting quite a bit of feed-back on the issue.
I look forward to the articles next week with headlines such as "Why Musk's Offer is a Threat to Democracy and the Rule of Law" and "Could this Signal an End to "X"?" or "Five Things You Need to Know About Musk's Latest Offer", and of course, "Is This the One Thing that Could End Donald Trump's Candidacy?".
I know people here tend to forget, but private companies have first amendment rights too.
Once again, your ability to read other people's minds is incredible.
Musk said (as quoted in this post): "If you were UNFAIRLY treated by your employer due to posting or liking something on this platform, we will fund your legal bill." So if Musk's lawyers say, the employer was within its rights in terminating this employee, there's no obligation on Musk to fund a law suit. But if the complainant has gotten free legal advice from Musk's lawyers that he doesn't have a cause of action, no matter what the lawyer in the office over the 7-11 says, that's valuable.
Maybe Trump should consider..
I put that Twitter tag comment in the wrong post 😑
Sorry about that.
jim5301 writes, "I know people here tend to forget, but private companies have first amendment rights too."
Immaterial. No one has the First Amendment right to punish anyone for his opinion, corporations especially.
jim5301 writes, "I know people here tend to forget, but private companies have first amendment rights too."
Immaterial. No one has the First Amendment right to punish anyone for his opinion, corporations especially.
Tapioca said
Most conservatives are authoritarians as long as that gets them closer to their social and hierarchical goals.
See? She's not always wrong. Pretty much always but this is an exception.
I've always objected to being called a conservative precisely on these grounds.
I identify as a liberal. Or minarchist, classical liberal or libertarian.
Never as a conservative.
John Henry
they see Elon Musk and Ron DeSatan and Trump as saviors who will somehow force corporations to bend to their will by pretending that unpopular speech is popular, let alone profitable.
Let's see what's going on here.
1. People on the right are looking for saviors. Nah, we just like it when some people with some power, money, or influence actually come out as on our side, at least in some matters, because increasingly those people have gone left, for reasons of guilt, if I had to guess.
2. People on the right particularly need or want saving from corporations - which is a pretty bald admission that corporations have turned left in drives, in contrast to the usual lefty line that Capitalism Is The Enemy. No no, not anymore: now Capitalism Is The Enabler! Yay Capitalism, as long as it toes the proper line.
3. The standard for speech is its popularity. I don't even... I mean, what can I even say to that?
4. A combination of 2 and 3 above: corporate speech, in the form of, say, ads and investments, is *popular* and also is diametrically opposed to the speech people of the right want corporations to employ. Yes. It's been very popular to try to sell light beer with a trans spokesperson. To have children's swimsuits with tucking capabilities. To recast fairy tales of European origin with non-European-origin actors, while simultaneously throwing a fit (or quickly and abjectly prostrating themselves before those who throw fits) if a European-origin (or straight, or other Privilege-holding) actor dares to hone in on a role that could potentially be played by a Person of Grievance. To invest in high ESG scoring, low return outfits rather than in companies that just focus on making money for the small 401(k) holder. These have all been very popular instances of corporate speech. It is true, however, that people of the right generally don't like this kind of speech - but we don't shut it down, we just mock it and take whatever action about it we see fit.
Probably pudd'n should not make so many admissions against interest. But then again, you're not trying to convince anyone to change sides, so carry on! I always say I want your side to keep on talking, nice and loud, so we can all see who you all are.
Which is a big difference between my side and yours, especially these days.
"I know people here tend to forget, but private companies have first amendment rights too."
I'm old enough to remember when you lefties (some guy named Obama?) told us that Citizens United was the worst decision in the history of the Supreme Court and the twilight of the dark night of fascism.
Elon--what can't he do?
A lot of employers are thinking about Bud Lite right now.
Field Marshall Freder: "Does that offer include his own employees?"
None of "his own employees" have ever been fired for what they posted on X.
They were fired for being incompetent, non-value added censorious authoritarians who were happy to do the bidding of the New Soviet Democratical Party and whose entire code and algorithm sets have to be gutted and rebuilt from the ground up in order to deliver greater transparency and freedom of exchange.
Other than that, your question was "valid"....
I know people here tend to forget, but private companies have first amendment rights too. If they think you're a jerk (prob because you are), bye bye.
Jim, that's not how the First Amendment works.
The government cannot censor you.
For instance, Robert Kennedy Jr. is suing Google for removing his youtube videos.
Normally Google might be able to avoid this lawsuit (the First Amendment doesn't apply to censorship by private companies). But Google (insanely!) made themselves vulnerable to this lawsuit by doing what the federal government asked them to do.
Congress can't censor by proxy.
I realize you're probably not an attorney, but your comment at 8:20 makes no sense whatsoever.
The idea of using the First Amendment to fire all your enemies is really bizarre. You've missed the spirit, and the text, and the history of the clause.
That should chill the reaction to free speech. And perhaps give some doxxers a pause.
Post a Comment