I'm not sure why that's so amusing. The justice system only requires the judiciary to be impartial in order to serve the public good effectively. Plaintiffs and defendants can be as biased as they want.

Terry Bollea (Hulk Hogan) successfully sued Gawker with the backing of investor Peter Thiel, who had a well-known grudge against them. That doesn't take away from the fact that Gawker grossly invaded people's privacy in order to turn a profit on harmful gossip.

I find it amusing because they find someone who has some sort of a problem with tesla and make them the jesus of their crusade against that company. "How could Elon (or Tesla) have done this?" in order to sway public opinion. They did this with when the plant sabotage employee a few years back, the diver guy who Elon called a pedo and every self proclaimed "whistleblower" as far as I can remember from 2015 when this stuff really got crazy.

They just want to make a buck and posture as if they have some moral quandry with the company or their leadership.

It is pretty weird that Musk repeatedly insisted on calling the experienced well respected diver a sex criminal, and faced zero consequences for this.

He faced a tone of consequences, just not criminal or civil charges in a court.

> He faced a tone of consequences, just not criminal or civil charges in a court.

I never could understand how what he said wasn't considered defamation. If that's not defamation, what is?

The US has a very high standard for "defamation" against "public figures" and a very low barrier to be considered a "public figure". By US standards, the diver was a "public figure", and Musk's insulting comment was not defamation, because it was hyperbolic (comparable to when Hustler Magazine published a fake ad about Jerry Falwell having sex with his mother in an outhouse).

Bottom line is that it's very hard to win defamation cases in the US. The Tesla engineer might have a shot because she was not well known, and Tesla accused her of very specific acts (moonlighting, unapproved travel) and they knew those accusations to be false. On the other hand, these were not exactly crimes, so who knows.

Just speculating but...

The legal system has a concept of "no harm no foul," (i.e. the concept of a "tort"), and if nobody believed Elon's obviously stupid tweet, there would be no tort to sue on.

Can you provide the most prominent names?

Being funded by short sellers does not imply her case is false: they can be independent, albeit the same goal ("your enemy is my friend").

PS: Tesla fans or stock holders could be the reason why this story was initially flagged

It’s a bit odd to focus on the short sellers anyway. If her funding by short sellers puts her honesty in question then wouldn’t the same logic put Tesla’s honesty about her in question as well? Both sides are making claims in line with their financial interests.

I have edited my original comment with a few which did not mark their donation as "private". P.S. I didn't say her case is not valid, simply that it's curious and amusing.

So? That just means Musk has enemies. That doesn't say anything about the truth of her claims.