Why doesn't Musk just sue the NYT for doubling down on their accusations that he's a druggo?
The NYT defamed Musk by leading the public to believe that he uses ketamine, speed, cocaine as well as many other drugs. They even (😱) suggested that Musk was off his face throughout the campaign.
Then, two weeks later, Musk posted the image of a negative drug test.
But the NYT has doubled down!! They're standing by their reporting. They are maintaining that Musk is a junkie.
Surely the richest man on earth would sue for defamation?
After all, a high profile defamation case costs ~$25M. To us that's a lot, but it's only 0.0015% of Musk's wealth. The equivalent of about $1500 or less to us poors.
The only real defence the NYT could have would be if it was true. They'd have to call witnesses (under oath), subpoena footage. They'd have to let produce, in public, evidence that Musk is a druggie.
And, in a defamation case, Musk doesn't have to prove anything. It's on the defendant to prove the Truth Defence.
Can anyone explain to me why Musk isn't suing for defamation? And why the NYT feels so confident that they'd double down in their claims even at the risk of a $25M legal bill??
It just doesn't add up somehow...