Elon Musk Vows to Pay Legal Bills to Battle Employers ‘Unfairly’ Treating Workers Over Twitter Posts

[AGXStarseed]

(Not written by me)

'No Limit. Please let us know'​

Twitter — now X — owner Elon Musk offered late Saturday to pay legal fees to battle any employer who has "unfairly treated" a worker for a post on the social media platform.

"If you were unfairly treated by your employer due to posting or liking something on this platform, we will fund your legal bill," he wrote.

"No limit," he added. "Please, let us know."

In a later response to another message, Musk vowed to "go after" the boards of directors of the companies as well.

Elon Musk gestures as he attends the Viva Technology conference dedicated to innovation and startups at the Porte de Versailles exhibition centre on June 16, 2023 in Paris, France.Chesnot/Getty Images

"We won't just sue," he wrote. "It will be extremely loud."

It wasn't immediately clear what prompted the amazingly generous offer just now.

Musk last month said that the platform's cash flow remains in the red because of a nearly 50% drop in advertising revenue and a heavy debt load.

An expected upturn in ad revenue in June never materialized.

Article Source: Elon Musk Vows to Pay Legal Bills to Battle Employers 'Unfairly' Treating Workers Over Twitter Posts

 

[Judge]

Just another fool who thinks their money alone can transcend more than two hundred years of law at the highest levels establishing the might of the private sector as well as the real and practical limits of "free speech".

He's free to make enemies of his peers in the private sector, but I hope he realizes their collective ire against him may amount to more capital and influence than even he has.

If I didn't know better, I'd say his real idol is a fictional character- Charles Foster Cane. - "Rosebud"

To go from a "visionary" to a cartoon character. Sad...

 

[Ronald Zeeman]

I like your practical limits to free speech. true many forget this. Even mathematics has practical limits just ask Kurt Godel.

 

[AGXStarseed]

Just another fool who thinks their money alone can transcend more than two hundred years of law at the highest levels establishing the might of the private sector as well as the real and practical limits of "free speech".

He's free to make enemies of his peers in the private sector, but I hope he realizes their collective ire against him may amount to more capital and influence than even he has.

If I didn't know better, I'd say his real idol is a fictional character- Charles Foster Cane. - "Rosebud"

To go from a "visionary" to a cartoon character. Sad...

From what I've read, this has come out not long after Noah Gragson - a driver for NASCAR - received an indefinite suspension after reportedly liking a meme on Instagram that made fun of George Floyd.

More information here, along with some potential "takers" for this idea: ‘Let’s go!’: Elon Musk drops ‘extremely loud’ MOAB in war on free speech – Roseanne Barr onboard

 

[TBRS1]

So does that mean that Musk will pay the legal bills of his former employees who HE fired for criticising Twitter on Twitter?

That would be ever-so-funny.

 

[Magna]

Employers combing through social media of their current employees and firing said employees who make comments or "likes" about any number of things that aren't even work related. Explain how such practices are somehow different in practice and principal to the same tactics performed by totalitarian governments. Be careful what we as a society accept as acceptable behaviors.

Good for him if it helps people.

Example and there are endless examples: If I were an employer and an Atheist who accepts LGBT et al and I fired an employee, not for any work related issue but because perhaps I saw on their social media that they were Christian and they posted (on their own time) that they did not support gay marriage. Shame on me as an employer.

 

[Judge]

Good for him if it helps people.

Frankly I think it's all too transparent. That it's all designed to help him and only him using populist sentiment.

The law isn't likely to change where basic rights of employers are concerned. A fundamental tenet of law that I suspect Musk's own attorneys have explained to him behind closed doors.

Particularly where six justices of the Supreme Court are concerned. Who are far more likely to hold up the reverence of the private sector over the public at large. Think of landmark cases like Citizens United and the doctrine of Eminent Domain. And above all, the overall pattern of such decisions inherently favoring commerce over the people.

In that respect, Elon Musk doesn't have a clue. But he can afford to throw his capital away for his own ego and amusement, if anything designed to influence the public in an election cycle. For his interests alone, and not ours.

 

[Magna]

Frankly I think it's all too transparent. That it's all designed to help him and only him using populist sentiment.

The law isn't likely to change where basic rights of employers are concerned. A fundamental tenet of law that I suspect Musk's own attorneys have explained to him behind closed doors.

Particularly where six justices of the Supreme Court are concerned. Who are far more likely to hold up the reverence of the private sector over the public at large. Think of landmark cases like Citizens United and the doctrine of Eminent Domain. And above all, the overall pattern of such decisions inherently favoring commerce over the people.

In that respect, Elon Musk doesn't have a clue. But he can afford to throw his capital away for his own ego and amusement, if anything designed to influence the public in an election cycle. For his interests alone, and not ours.

In the example I gave in my post directly above yours, do you believe employers should have the right to fire an employee based on the employee's ideology or beliefs, whatever they may be if said ideologies or beliefs have nothing to do with the employee's work performance?

 

[Outdated]

 

[Judge]

In the example I gave in my post directly above yours, do you believe employers should have the right to fire an employee based on the employee's ideology or beliefs, whatever they may be if said ideologies or beliefs have nothing to do with the employee's work performance?

It's academic what I actually think, given what I understand about our legal system. Which isn't directly subject to a consensus of the public or any collective interpretation of our Constitution.

Not everything in Supreme Court case law is inherently etched in stone. However IMO based on so many decisions over two centuries and many courts that have profoundly- and consistently favored commerce over consumers it's pretty clear that this pattern of adjudication is not going to change. That this particular concern outweighs other precedents when it comes to free speech.

Conversely there has been a distinct trend over the years to unravel the Doctrine of "Clear and Present Danger" since 1919, with a number of other landmark cases such as US v. Flynt, National Socialist Party v. Village of Skokie and Brandenburg v. Ohio. However I don't see any court trend (especially presently) willing to support free speech & assembly rights of individuals contrary to the rights of commerce.

Even our laws against discrimination don't apply under certain circumstances for certain business entities or more succinctly "social clubs" or religious organizations that do business but hide under a legal veil of protection.

 

[Magna]

It's academic what I actually think, given what I understand about our legal system. Which isn't directly subject to a consensus of the public or any collective interpretation of our Constitution.

Not everything in Supreme Court case law is inherently etched in stone. However IMO based on so many decisions over two centuries and many courts that have profoundly- and consistently favored commerce over consumers it's pretty clear that this pattern of adjudication is not going to change. That this particular concern outweighs other precedents when it comes to free speech.

Conversely there has been a distinct trend over the years to unravel the Doctrine of "Clear and Present Danger" since 1919, with a number of other landmark cases such as US v Flynt and Brandenburg v. Ohio. However I don't see any court trend (especially presently) willing to support free speech rights of individuals contrary to the rights of commerce.

Even our laws against discrimination don't apply under certain circumstances for certain business entities or more succinctly "social clubs" or religious organizations that do business but hide under a legal veil of protection.

Being that I'm an individual rather than a commercial entity, knowing that the current legal system favors commerce over the consumer as you say, I certainly don't have to support (and don't) the elevation of commerce over and to the detriment of, the consumer, individuals. Combatting such an imbalance is something that I applaud him for if it helps beat back an overreaching power into people's personal lives which don't affect their work performance.

Also, it's possible that you have a personal opinion on this subject (ie my question) that differs from your academic knowledge on the subject.

 

[Judge]

Also, it's possible that you have a personal opinion on this subject (ie my question) that differs from your academic knowledge on the subject.

No, I really don't.

It's precisely my understanding of the legal dynamics in play that would look on a personal opinion over some issues that amounts to a waste of time and emotion. Would you want to a play of game of craps if you knew the dice were loaded? I wouldn't.

I have other ways I prefer to beat my head against a wall- like Linux. Just not this one. Keep in mind as well that I am a senior citizen who has experienced being the bug far more often than the windshield.

One thing I do find amusing about it all is that not too long ago Musk was in the news about making demands of his employees working from home to come back to the office. And for some, that may prove quite a hardship. As an employer, I'd say he's walking a tightrope of hypocrisy in the public eye.

https://www.latimes.com/business/te...rs-to-return-to-the-office-or-lose-their-jobs
https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2022/11/elon-musk-fire-employees-hardcore

 

[Yeshuasdaughter]

I don't understand why people are upset about this. Didn't he buy Twitter because he wanted to end the rampant censorship on the site? So, a billionaire that is saying that he will help pay legal fees to anyone who lost a job because of expressing an opinion on religion, politics, or otherwise, is a good thing.

These are the tenets of a free society that I learned in school, and then taught to my own child. People have the right to freedom of expression. Cut and dry. What's so controversial about that?

You guys clearly don't live in one of the cities that had "mostly peaceful" protests. Where police were defunded and scores of people actually lost jobs because of speech.

 

[Judge]

People have the right to freedom of expression. Cut and dry. What's so controversial about that?

The controversy lies in what the people don't legally understand. That while the Bill of Rights may appear unlimited to the average reader, that the law continues to parse it whether the public likes it or not.

It's anything but "cut and dry". Especially when whether or not the content of speech or expression is considered to have precipitated "an imminent, lawless act". If not, it's considered lawful free speech. Otherwise it's a crime. Free speech expanded, but nebulously still interpreted by the courts.

-Brandenburg v. Ohio, 1969.

 

[Neonatal RRT]

It's things like this that keep the conversation going. Sure, right now, it's Elon Musk. Another day, it's someone else. To be sure, we have a problem in the world where people can be punished for words and are censored. It's a much bigger issue than cyber-bullying, disinformation, cancel culture, and creating social unrest. Each culture has a different perspective of what they deem offensive or a threat. There are people that just want to see the world burn, and will throw gasoline on any fire they can. The 2-5% of our population that are psychopathic in nature thrive on-line because they can get their message out to the masses. They don't care what they say or do on-line as long as it creates a reaction for them to sit back and enjoy. Keep in mind that psychopaths are often intelligent and calculating and can take advantage of others, and given the platform they now have on-line, their voices and agendas are amplified significantly. Then there are the algorithms, the marketing, the meta data, identity theft, etc. There's a lot to consider when talking about free speech.

Furthermore, when an employer, government agency, or their contracted agencies begin tracking "key words", and from whom they are coming from, and then punitive action taken, this is all very nebulous because it's all in the implicit biases and interpretation of perspective and context. Sure, there is some regulation in terms of "extremism", but the rest of it, not so much. It might seem a beautiful thing to have a society where there is no conflict of words and ideas, but this most certainly requires some degree of fear, propaganda, lies, and a "cleansing" of mind, body, and soul. Plenty of mass graves in this world full of people with different ideas than the authoritarians trying to create a "beautiful paradise". Censorship, tracking, punitive action for words is certainly in the "authoritarian's playbook". We have to be really cautious about how we do things here.

I think most people would like a "safe space" on-line where they can say what is on their minds without some sort of punitive action/reaction to true free speech. I'd rather not be tracked. I'd rather not have to deal with bias, lies, and disinformation. However, that's not the world we live in. Therefore, we might want to have a conversation about how we should react or not react to comments on-line. We might want to have a conversation about how to discern bias. We might want to have a conversation about what we consider a "threat". We might want to have a conversation about how to deal with conflicts in perspective and context. We might want to have a conversation about how important free speech is to our personal identities and freedoms.

 

[Judge]

Another obstacle remains laws at much lower levels. Such as "at-will employment". No federal court ever struck it down, and it often plays a big role in wrongful termination suits, depending on the jurisdiction.

Federal law prohibits various things employers can do against employees, but not public statements one chooses to make online.

https://legal.thomsonreuters.com/en/insights/articles/what-is-at-will-employment

 

[Yeshuasdaughter]

The controversy lies in what the people don't legally understand. That while the Bill of Rights may appear unlimited to the average reader, that the law continues to parse it whether the public likes it or not.

It's anything but "cut and dry". Especially when whether or not the content of speech or expression is considered to have precipitated "an imminent, lawless act". If not, it's considered lawful free speech. Otherwise it's a crime. Free speech expanded, but nebulously still interpreted by the courts.

-Brandenburg v. Ohio, 1969.

I disagree, strongly.

No one yelled fire in a crowded theater.

Please explain.

 

[Judge]

I disagree, strongly.

No one yelled fire in a crowded theater.

Please explain.

No, I merely pointed out the mechanics of federal law relative to free speech. Not what the path to ligitating such a case would require. The two cases I actually mentioned actually expanded free speech beyond the Doctrine of Clear and Present Danger. Allowing extremists to legally have their say as long as they remained relatively peaceful. However those same precedents do not in any way involve a scope of employment either. Making the clear and present danger of a crowded theater irrelevant.

The only reason I brought it up was to demonstrate that our rights to free speech *are not unlimited*.

In essence this remains an issue of wrongful termination, first and foremost. Not a question of whether one's free speech rights were violated. Granted, it may be possible to appeal such a case to a higher court, but on the merits of wrongful termination- not free speech. Being mindful of how broad "at-will" employment can allow your employer to fire you with relative ease as long as it's not blatantly discriminatory as outlined in federal law.

In terms of at-will employment, those terms outlining what employers cannot do does not include provisions regarding freedom of speech. Makes for a simple, but strong legal defense of an employer. With at best a very small chance of such a case being appealed all the way to the Supreme Court. Where six of those justices would likely uphold their historical commitment to commerce first and foremost, in accordance with federal precedents going all the way back to the inception of this country. Expecting them to kowtow to populists and do away with the at-will employment laws? Not likely. It's the three progressives who would more likely adjudicate the case in the name of the plaintiff. Now do the math. The plaintiff would lose. Provided of course such a case could actually make it all the way to the top. Possible, but not probable.

If freedom of speech could be so effectively tried in a federal court, don't you think that former quarterback Colin Kaepernick would have exploited that possibility? He certainly had the money to assemble a "dream team". But the real world result was he did nothing. He'd be facing considerations of at-will employment and whether his employer properly carried out a termination for cause (a California requirement). Not constitutional considerations of free speech.

 

[Au Naturel]

(Not written by me)

'No Limit. Please let us know'​

Twitter — now X — owner Elon Musk offered late Saturday to pay legal fees to battle any employer who has "unfairly treated" a worker for a post on the social media platform.

"If you were unfairly treated by your employer due to posting or liking something on this platform, we will fund your legal bill," he wrote.

"No limit," he added. "Please, let us know."

In a later response to another message, Musk vowed to "go after" the boards of directors of the companies as well.

Elon Musk gestures as he attends the Viva Technology conference dedicated to innovation and startups at the Porte de Versailles exhibition centre on June 16, 2023 in Paris, France.Chesnot/Getty Images

"We won't just sue," he wrote. "It will be extremely loud."

It wasn't immediately clear what prompted the amazingly generous offer just now.

Musk last month said that the platform's cash flow remains in the red because of a nearly 50% drop in advertising revenue and a heavy debt load.

An expected upturn in ad revenue in June never materialized.

Article Source: Elon Musk Vows to Pay Legal Bills to Battle Employers 'Unfairly' Treating Workers Over Twitter Posts

That could get expensive. But he has an important point. This is how cancel culture works.

Unless you are a celebrity or a corporate VIP, or posting things that are corporate secrets, dissing coworkers, or tweeting while on the job, what you post on Twitter ought to have no impact on work. Your work is what impacts work.

Maybe you tweet about your gay or autistic experience or progressive political thinking, or you're a MAGA fan. Your employer doesn't like it? That's too bad for them. What you do when you're not on the clock is your business, not theirs. They don't get to control your political or sexual or religious, or recreational expression when you are off the clock.

You could fire them in an "at-will" state, but you'll still have to pay unemployment and any benefits that accrue because they'd be fired without cause. (Been there, done that, won the case.)

Colin Kaepernick was on the clock. That's why he couldn't fight it. If Colin had just made tweets about racial injustice on his own time, nobody would be in trouble. VIPs and celebrities are assumed to be the public face of the entities they work for. Joe average worker is not.

 

[Ronald Zeeman]

Happy I'm retired. All Musk is to me is a Aspie with lots of money and an opinion. My understanding anything to do with free speech only applies to government. you can say anything you want in your own home. Thats why libel laws exist.