Kiwi Bloke

Working for a “B”ig auto dinosaur 🦖 prior to that VW Group. 100% Tesla fanatic!

[Kiwi Bloke @HybridEcon]

@Artemisfornow

[Kiwi Bloke @HybridEcon]

@GBPolitcs

[Kiwi Bloke @HybridEcon]

@ukhomeoffice #Sendthemback

[Kiwi Bloke @HybridEcon]

@TRobinsonNewEra We really don’t hate the MSM enough, the headline is “French”. #citizenvigilante

[Kiwi Bloke @HybridEcon]

@best_onX @elonmusk People being let off for gang rape did in the UK.. 🤦‍♂️

[Chris Rose @ArchRose90]

The Green Party has complained about this cartoon of Zack Polanski by the The Times.

They’re deeply unhappy with it. Whatever you do, do not repost!

[Kiwi Bloke @HybridEcon]

@CrimeLdn Another doctor or engineer in the UK showing his skills..

[Kiwi Bloke @HybridEcon]

@koreanoli Sadly, this is sort of turning into a documentary.

[Kiwi Bloke @HybridEcon]

@pricevilloresi @elonmusk Why don’t you publish this in an article on X for peer review?

[Forrest Knight @ForrestPKnight]

Honestly, Ben Affleck actually knowing AI and the landscape caught me off guard, but as a writer, makes sense.

Great takes across the board.

[Sawyer Merritt @SawyerMerritt]

BREAKING: Tesla has officially started FSD Unsupervised Robotaxi rides for the general public in Austin with no safety monitors in the car, marking a historic milestone for the company.

Congrats @Tesla team!

[Kiwi Bloke @HybridEcon]

@dshensmith @EvaVlaar Please help her.

[Kiwi Bloke @HybridEcon]

@policylaila Brilliant, nice response. Clearly that guy you were talking to is an idiot, the brief points he made were all factually incorrect. He’s clearly believing mainstream misinformation.

[Jeffery Mead @the_jefferymead]

Medi Hasan talking about prosecuting Elon Musk isn't actually because Elon is breaking any laws. It's because Elon is very powerful and effective. Think about this..

He owns the most free speech platform on the internet.
He himself has over 230 million followers.

He is on his way to being worth 1 trillion dollars.
He owns the likely fastest advancing AI in the world.

He is essentially 100% on the side of the republicans
And he is only in his mid 50's meaning he has at least a 20 year runway.

That is why democrats would want to prosecute him. He is too big of a threat to their political power.

[Kiwi Bloke @HybridEcon]

The following example seems solid. Would need legal validation tho.

…., JEREMY JUDKINS, by & through his undersigned counsel, & moves this Honorable Court to dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint with prejudice pursuant to 735 ILCS 5/2-615. In support thereof, Defendant states as follows:
I. INTRODUCTION
1. Plaintiff Andrew Krain brings this action for defamation per se, alleging that Defendant defamed him by characterizing his use of Google Ads for the Tesla Referral Program as "illegal."
2. Plaintiff admits in his Complaint that he engaged in the conduct described (using Google Ads for referrals) but argues that the term "illegal" falsely imputes the commission of a criminal offense.
3. Under Illinois’ mandatory Innocent Construction Rule, this claim fails as a matter of law. The term "illegal," particularly in the context of a civil contract dispute or platform violation, is reasonably capable of an innocent construction (meaning "unauthorized" or "violative of terms") and therefore cannot support a claim for defamation per se.
II. LEGAL STANDARD
1. A motion to dismiss under Section 2-615 attacks the legal sufficiency of the complaint. Green v. Rogers, 234 Ill. 2d 478, 491 (2009).
2. Illinois courts must dismiss a defamation claim if the statement in question is reasonably capable of an innocent construction. This is a question of law to be resolved by the Court, not a jury. Tuite v. Corbitt, 224 Ill. 2d 490, 503 (2006).
III. ARGUMENT
A. The Statement "Illegal" Must Be Innocently Construed as a Violation of Policy, Not a Criminal Offense.
1. To sustain a claim for defamation per se based on the imputation of a crime, the statement must impute the commission of a specific criminal offense.
2. However, under the Innocent Construction Rule, "if a statement is capable of two interpretations, one of which is defamatory and the other of which is not, the court must adopt the non-defamatory interpretation." Lott v. Strang, 312 Ill. App. 3d 521, 524 (2000).
3. In the context of the Defendant’s video, the discussion centered on the "Tesla Referral Program" and the use of "Google Ads."
4. The term "illegal" is frequently used in common parlance to describe conduct that is unauthorized, against the rules, or violative of civil terms, without implying a criminal indictment.
• Example: Describing an "illegal forward pass" in football or an "illegal move" in chess implies a violation of the rules of the game, not a violation of the Illinois Criminal Code.
5. Here, a reasonable viewer would interpret the Defendant’s statement that the Plaintiff’s actions were "illegal" to mean they were "violative of Tesla’s Terms and Conditions" or "prohibited by Google’s Ad policies."
6. Because this non-criminal interpretation is reasonable, this Court is mandated by Illinois Supreme Court precedent to adopt it. Once the innocent construction is adopted, the statement no longer imputes a crime, and the defamation per se claim collapses.
B. The Statement is Non-Actionable Opinion and Rhetorical Hyperbole.
1. Even if the Innocent Construction Rule did not apply, the statement constitutes protected rhetorical hyperbole.
2. Courts have long held that loose, figurative language used in heated debates—especially on internet platforms—is not actionable.
3. In Greenbelt Coop. Pub. Ass’n v. Bresler, 398 U.S. 6 (1970), the U.S. Supreme Court held that the word "blackmail" was rhetorical hyperbole for aggressive negotiating, not an accusation of a felony.
4. Similarly, characterizing a breach of Tesla’s referral terms as "illegal" is a "vigorous epithet" describing the Plaintiff’s violation of platform rules. It is not a literal accusation of a crime that would be indictable.
IV. CONCLUSION
WHEREFORE, Defendant JEREMY JUDKINS respectfully requests that this Honorable Court enter an order dismissing Plaintiff’s Complaint with prejudice, awarding Defendant his costs incurred in defending this action, and granting such other relief as this Court deems just and proper.

[Kiwi Bloke @HybridEcon]

As per Gemini and double checked as an approach and precedents:

1. Illinois: The "Innocent Construction" Rule
Illinois is one of the most defendant-friendly jurisdictions in the US for defamation because of the Innocent Construction Rule. This rule is not a mere suggestion; it is a mandate.
• The Rule: If a statement is capable of any reasonable non-defamatory interpretation, the court must adopt that interpretation and dismiss the case.
• Application to "Illegal":
• The Defense: You would argue that "illegal" is a loose term. In the context of a Tesla referral program, "illegal" can reasonably be interpreted to mean "unauthorized," "violative of terms," or "against policy," rather than "criminally indictable."
• Case Law Example: Green v. Rogers (234 Ill. 2d 478, 2009).
• What happened: A father sued a little league coach/board member for saying the father had a "long pattern of misconduct" and abuse.
• The Ruling: The Illinois Supreme Court ruled that "misconduct" and "abuse" were too vague and could refer to non-criminal behavior (like being rude or pushy). Because a non-criminal interpretation was possible, the statement was not defamation per se.
• Application to your case: If "misconduct" can be innocent because it might just mean "bad behavior," then "illegal" can be innocent if it might just mean "against civil rules."
2. United States Federal Law: "Rhetorical Hyperbole"
Federal courts (and the US Supreme Court) have established that loose, figurative language used in heated public debates cannot be treated as literal accusations of crime.
• The "Blackmail" Precedent: Greenbelt Cooperative Publishing Assn., Inc. v. Bresler (398 U.S. 6, 1970).
• The Case: A newspaper reported that a real estate developer was engaging in "blackmail" against the city council during negotiations. The developer sued, claiming he was falsely accused of the crime of blackmail.
• The Ruling: The Supreme Court reversed the judgment. They held that "even the most careless reader must have perceived that the word was no more than rhetorical hyperbole, a vigorous epithet used by those who considered [the developer's] negotiating position extremely unreasonable."
• Why this wins the case: If the Supreme Court says "blackmail" (a felony) can be used legally to describe aggressive business tactics, then "illegal" can certainly be used to describe aggressive marketing tactics (like using Google Ads when Tesla says not to). The defense is that the audience understands this is "YouTuber speak," not a police report.
3. English Law: The "Honest Opinion" Defense
The UK (specifically England & Wales) is generally friendlier to plaintiffs (people suing), but the Defamation Act 2013 strengthened the defense of opinion.
• The Distinction: English law draws a hard line between an Imputation of Guilt (Fact) and General Abuse/Opinion.
• The Defense: Under Section 3 of the Defamation Act 2013, the defendant has a complete defense if:
1. The statement was an opinion.
2. The statement indicated the basis of the opinion (e.g., "He used Google Ads, which is illegal").
3. An honest person could have held that opinion based on any fact that existed at the time.
• Case Concept: Smith v. ADVFN (2008).
• Context: This case involved internet bulletin boards (similar to social media).
• The Ruling: The judge recognized that online communication is often "casual, conversational, and uninhibited." The court ruled that readers of these forums anticipate "exaggeration, distortion, and mockery."
• Application: An English court would look at the platform (TikTok/Twitter). They would likely rule that a reasonable viewer knows a TikToker isn't a judge giving a ruling, but a commentator expressing a view on the rules of a referral program. Recommended Tactical Approach
Since the case is in Illinois, the Innocent Construction Rule is your "Nuclear Option."

[Kiwi Bloke @HybridEcon]

@briandstone @ian_bruh1 On what grounds was the motion raised?

[Kiwi Bloke @HybridEcon]

@SawyerMerritt The silly thing here is that that tax will be for all mileage. So about 1/2 my miles are on European roads a year and I’ll pay the UK tax on all that it seems. Hope Tesla can deliver a software update that allows auto reporting of UK miles only!

[Kiwi Bloke @HybridEcon]

@Europarl_EN Approve FSD from @Tesla tomorrow and you will save lives! Every day you delay results in death! The evidence is irrefutable!

[Kiwi Bloke @HybridEcon]

@teslaeurope Will the UK be next??