The board is not collectively punished for the actions of a corporation. Prosecutors have to prove which individuals (if any) are criminally responsible, and often that’s more difficult than proving that the corporation is responsible.
Exactly. If you can’t point to the EXACT person that’s responsible for the committing of a crime, you can’t do anything about the crime and have to let it go on without interruption. There’s literally no other choice. /s
When someone is murdered, they don’t put three people on trial and say “One of these must be the killer, but we can’t figure out who. So we’ll have to send them all to prison”.
But in this case, they do have another choice: prosecute the corporation instead of individuals.
They should demand an immediate halt to the activity, if they don’t, force the organization shuttered immediately. Stop the crime. You don’t wait to figure out culpability to stop the crime in process. The justice department is law ENFORCEMENT, not assigning culpability. That’s the judicial branch’s job. It’s not difficult.
If they don’t, they can stop the activity but it will require getting a judge to issue a restraining order or an injunction.
The DoJ generally can’t stop someone unilaterally. Even when they arrest someone, that person is immediately brought before a judge (habeas corpus) who decides whether they can go free before trial.
It’s so dumb that you’re getting downvoted for telling people the truth that they don’t want to hear. Of course you can’t just “prosecute the board”. Individually, they may or may not be complicit.
It does seem that Musk could be seen as obviously complicit, though, since he is the one out there making the pitch. DOJ should be able to go after him, criminally, if the activity continues, right?
If you posted on Lemmy, “Hey, America PAC is offering money to registered voters, go check it out!” then I think that would be protected speech. If so, it would be equally protected when Musk posts that on X.
America PAC is on the hook, not necessarily their shills.
You’re probably right there. Looking up the onky quoted I’ve been able to find from Musk on the topic, I think he’s been careful not to incriminate himself directly. Either that or he’s been lucky in his phrasing…
The board is not collectively punished for the actions of a corporation. Prosecutors have to prove which individuals (if any) are criminally responsible, and often that’s more difficult than proving that the corporation is responsible.
Exactly. If you can’t point to the EXACT person that’s responsible for the committing of a crime, you can’t do anything about the crime and have to let it go on without interruption. There’s literally no other choice. /s
Yes, that’s how prosecutions work.
When someone is murdered, they don’t put three people on trial and say “One of these must be the killer, but we can’t figure out who. So we’ll have to send them all to prison”.
But in this case, they do have another choice: prosecute the corporation instead of individuals.
They should demand an immediate halt to the activity, if they don’t, force the organization shuttered immediately. Stop the crime. You don’t wait to figure out culpability to stop the crime in process. The justice department is law ENFORCEMENT, not assigning culpability. That’s the judicial branch’s job. It’s not difficult.
They have already demanded a halt.
If they don’t, they can stop the activity but it will require getting a judge to issue a restraining order or an injunction.
The DoJ generally can’t stop someone unilaterally. Even when they arrest someone, that person is immediately brought before a judge (habeas corpus) who decides whether they can go free before trial.
It’s so dumb that you’re getting downvoted for telling people the truth that they don’t want to hear. Of course you can’t just “prosecute the board”. Individually, they may or may not be complicit.
It does seem that Musk could be seen as obviously complicit, though, since he is the one out there making the pitch. DOJ should be able to go after him, criminally, if the activity continues, right?
I don’t know.
If you posted on Lemmy, “Hey, America PAC is offering money to registered voters, go check it out!” then I think that would be protected speech. If so, it would be equally protected when Musk posts that on X.
America PAC is on the hook, not necessarily their shills.
You’re probably right there. Looking up the onky quoted I’ve been able to find from Musk on the topic, I think he’s been careful not to incriminate himself directly. Either that or he’s been lucky in his phrasing…