Ha Ha!

In response to his 1st Amendment challenge to a consent decree that he entered into with the SEC to limit his deceptive tweeting on official matters with Tesla, a judge has responded, "Tu Stupri Cognati Mihi,". (Are you f%$#ing kidding me?)*

This is not a surprise really.  Musk has a long history of public statement that, in earlier times, would have him in the dock for stock price manipulation:

Billionaire Tesla co-founder Elon Musk lost his effort to terminate his consent decree with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the grounds that the mandatory pre-approval of his tweets that could move stocks violates his First Amendment rights.

“With regard to the First Amendment argument, it is undisputed in this case that Musk’s tweets are at least presumptively ‘protected speech,'” U.S. District Judge Lewis Liman wrote in a 22-page ruling on Wednesday. “At the same time, however, even Musk concedes that his free speech rights do not permit him to engage in speech that is or could ‘be considered fraudulent or otherwise violative of the securities laws.”

………

After the SEC issued subpoenas to investigate the matter, Musk moved to quash those subpoenas and terminate his consent decree, Liman denied both requests.

“Musk may wish it were otherwise, but he remains subject to the same enforcement authority—and has the same means to challenge the exercise of that authority—as any other citizen,” the ruling states. “Indeed, to conclude otherwise would be to hold that a serial violator of the securities laws or a recidivist would enjoy greater protection against SEC enforcement than a person who had never even been accused of a securities law violation. Musk points to nothing in the law or the language of the statute that would suggest that Congress intended such a perverse result.”

Indeed.

^*When I wrote about this faux legal term earlier, I had no idea that I would be using the term so soon.