melbourne_giant t1_ja2c5ti wrote
Reply to comment by bigfatfun in Twitter argues before Supreme Court that letting ISIS use platform not the same as aiding and abetting terror by do-you-know-the-way9
Must has been the CEO for all of 5 minutes compared to how long the company has actually been around.
But sure, fuck Musk.
OfLittleToNoValue t1_ja2rxpa wrote
Will it make you happier to hear fuck that ignorant cock jack Dorsey too?
Omnipresent_Walrus t1_ja2m1sk wrote
The fuck does that have to do with anything?
PM_ME_YOUR_NICE_EYES t1_ja2wupk wrote
The Supreme court case in question is about a terrorist attack that happened in 2017 which was about 5 years before elon bought Twitter.
Omnipresent_Walrus t1_ja36yg7 wrote
And the way it's being argued now is... Happening now. It doesn't change that these arguments are happening under his watch.
AndyHN t1_ja3diqc wrote
To prevent the company that he owns now from being held responsible for something the company did before he owned it, his lawyers have to justify the things that the company did before he owned it. It's not like he can concede that the policy was wrong, change it, and any judgement will be enforced against the previous ownership.
Omnipresent_Walrus t1_ja3fi6z wrote
They doesn't change that what's being said is nonsense?
AndyHN t1_ja43wdb wrote
A guy in California was just acquitted of DUI because in CA it's legal to drive under the influence if the result of not driving puts someone at greater risk of harm. His lawyer argued successfully in court that he was at greater risk of harm if he didn't flee in his car when his wife caught him with his girlfriend. That sounds like nonsense to me, but it worked.
Whatever nonsense is being argued by Twitter's lawyers will only be dumb if it doesn't work. What would be dumber would be not using every argument they can think of to clear their client.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments