COMMUNITY NOTED names the lazy menace , lazy folx freak the frick out

The cruelty is the

Foids can menace these nuts amirite

Foids are finally facing the wall

Elon, my king!

Since they're never working, yea.

What?

@box it's someone on the inside trying to ask for help, be nice

Put them in work camps(factories).

Well the Redditor didn't account for reduced spending other than salary so take that how you want

Old cripple people

It would be a greater cost savings to get boomers to MAID themselves

Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, Defense.

Snoop looks like he has GRIDs

RIP Easy-E

Holy shit, almost as if I had said this in the post:

She isn't a "public figure" legally. Elonia is. A shit load of people have Director in their title, that doesn't mean she's a political appointee.

She's apparently a career employee in a non-public facing role, not politically appointed (obviously because Trump could just eliminate the position)

"Public officials" as those whose positions invite "public scrutiny" and whose actions are of public concern. Hutchinson v. Proxmire, 443 U.S. 111 (1979) is a binding precedent, in which a Climate Researcher was given a Golden Fleece award by a Senator who mentioned only his job title. The Supreme Court ruled that even though he had some access to the public in the scope of his research:

His access, such as it was, came after the alleged libel, and was limited to responding to the announcement of the award. Those charged with alleged defamation cannot, by their own conduct, create their own defense by making the claimant a public figure. Nor is the concern about public expenditures sufficient to make petitioner a public figure, petitioner at no time having assumed any role of public prominence in the broad question of such concern.

Posting a non-public facing federal employee's name and saying "so I heard this guy was in charge of BIPOCcute twinks and gay anal s*x" when you're actually in charge of contracting and misrepresenting what you do in order to rile up 80 IQ proles meets the standard.

Even if she was considered a public figure, the original X poster could likely be said to post with actual malice given the misrepresentation of where their data came from when asked.

She isn't an political appointee from the list of official appointments, the original poster said he got her info from "OPM dot gov" but that's a lie, because OPM doesn't list that shit.

Nor does this: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/interactive/2020/biden-appointee-tracker/

The Xstrag's info came from a site called Bidensbasement which is an unsourced boomer sneed page and I think they just put anyone with a title that they didn't like the sound of on there.

!nonchuds

Trump's term is going to be like his first term:

• Trump proposes idea he spent 10 seconds thinking about

• Advisor explains things are more complicated than that

• Trump says, "Wow. I didn't know that. Wow."

There are few possibilities here:

The employee may potentially have grounds for claims of Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress (NIED), defamation, or false light against Elonia

Elon Musk, as a highly influential individual with millions of r-slur followers and significant reach, arguably has a heightened duty to act responsibly when publicizing statements, especially those that could foreseeably result in harm to others. Courts might find a duty of care in this case because it is foreseeable that making such a statement about a non-public-facing federal employee could expose her to harassment, particularly given Musk's large and neurodivergent audience of sexy Indian dudes and freaks.

A reasonable person in Musk's position should understand that such a statement could lead to harm, and would probably shut the frick up.

If Musk negligently failed to verify the truth of his claim that the employee's job was "fake" or recklessly disregarded its accuracy, this could constitute a breach of this duty and it may be viewed as careless or reckless given the predictable harm.

Any harassment and abuse that followed his statement could potentially be shown to have been directly caused by his publication. The employee would need to demonstrate that she suffered severe emotional harm, such as anxiety, depression, or whatever else because of the statement.

He might argue that his statement is protected speech. However, courts have held that the First Amendment does not protect speech that incites foreseeable harm like harassment.

For defamation, Musk's statement would need to be false, but it could also hecking stochastic violence. So if the statement is framed as an opinion, it might still be actionable if it implies false, defamatory facts. Once again, Musk published the statement to millions of followers on Twitter, easily satisfying this element.

Private Individual vs. Public Figure: If the employee is a private individual (not a public figure), she would only need to show that Musk acted negligently in determining the truth of his statement.

Any harassment and abuse, coupled with the widespread dissemination of the claim that her job is fake, would likely have caused harm to her reputation, particularly if it undermines her credibility.

Once again, might argue the statement was an opinion, not a verifiable fact, but the courts distinguish between fact and opinion based on the context and how the (r-slurred) audience would interpret the statement.

SHOW MORE