Connect with us

Nation

Elon Musk threatens to end Twitter deal over ‘material breach’

Published

on

Screen Shot 2021 02 01 at 1.19.52 PM

Self-proclaimed free-speech absolutist Elon Musk tweeted in May that his deal to buy Twitter was “temporarily on hold” until the company could prove accounts belonging to spam bots accounted for less than 5% of all users.

Musk is upping the ante, accusing Twitter of being in “material breach” of its deal obligations. The warning was delivered in a letter from Musk’s attorneys to Twitter’s legal officer, Vijaya Gadde.

The letter stated Musk reserved all rights to terminate the acquisition if the company did not present the details requested about the bot accounts. Not providing the information was a “clear material breach” it reiterated.

In a statement, Twitter responded that it planned to enforce the completion of the deal on the agreed terms: “Twitter has and will continue to cooperatively share information with Musk to consummate the transaction in accordance with the terms of the merger agreement.”

Musk has stated his belief that spam bots account for at least 20% of Twitter users, while independent researchers projected the number around 9% to 15%. Musk said he needs the data from Twitter in order to conduct his own analysis because he does not believe in the company’s “lax testing methodologies.”

Reuters reports:

To be sure, Musk may be able to walk away or renegotiate the deal even if the law is on Twitter’s side. This is because any litigation is likely to be protracted, and Twitter may decide it makes more sense to agree to a lower price or receive compensation from Musk rather than try to force him to complete the transaction in court.

You may like

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

Nation

BREAKING: NY Governor Furious Supreme Court Strikes down Concealed Carry Restriction

Published

on

gun sales in us rise coronavirus

 

Breaking Thursday, the Supreme Court ruled that New York’s “proper-cause” requirement to obtain a concealed-carry license is unconstitutional as it violates ordinary citizens’ Second Amendment rights.

The Associated Press reports:

The court’s decision struck down a New York law requiring people to demonstrate a particular need for carrying a gun in order to get a license to carry one in public. The justices said that requirement violates the Second Amendment right to “keep and bear arms.”

Justice Clarence Thomas wrote for the majority that the Constitution protects “an individual’s right to carry a handgun for self-defense outside the home.” That right is not a “second-class right,” Thomas wrote. “We know of no other constitutional right that an individual may exercise only after demonstrating to government officers some special need.”

National Review reports, “The Court voted 6–3 to strike down the New York law, which has been in place since 1913 and required that people show a special need to obtain a license to carry a concealed handgun outside the home.” The Court’s three liberal justices dissented.

The Justices not only wrote opinions, but also addressed the opposing opinions. Justice Stephen Breyer wrote a dissent accusing the majority opinion of deciding the case “without discussing the nature or severity” of gun violence. Justice Samuel Alito responded to Breyer’s concern in his concurring opinion:

“Why, for example, does the dissent think it is relevant to recount the mass shootings that have occurred in recent years?” Alito wrote, arguing that the New York law did not stop the 18-year-old shooter who killed ten people in a grocery store in Buffalo, N.Y., last month.

The case comes after plaintiffs Robert Nash and Brandon Koch of upstate New York were denied carry permits in 2016 and 2018 because they did not “face any special or unique danger” to their lives.

They were authorized to carry guns for target practice and hunting away from populated areas and Koch was permitted to carry a gun to and from work.

“Nash and Koch did not receive unrestricted licenses because neither demonstrated a nonspeculative need to carry a handgun virtually anywhere in public,” Barbara D. Underwood, New York’s solicitor general, wrote in a brief.

Nash and Koch successfully argued that having to demonstrate a need for self-protection to acquire a concealed-carry permit was unconstitutional.

Justice Clarence Thomas wrote in the majority opinion in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen that the Second Amendment protects the right of individuals to carry a gun outside the home, adding that the state’s “proper cause” requirement “violates the Fourteenth Amendment by preventing law-abiding citizens with ordinary self-defense needs from exercising their Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms in public for self-defense.”

Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote in a concurring opinion, joined by Chief Justice John Roberts, that the ruling “does not prohibit States from imposing licensing requirements for carrying a handgun for self-defense.”

“In particular the Court’s decision does not affect the existing licensing regimes — known as ‘shall-issue’ regimes — that are employed in 43 states,” he wrote, adding that states with proper-cause requirements “may continue to require licenses for carrying handguns for self-defense so long as those States employ objective licensing requirements like those used by the 43 shall-issue States.”

 

 

You may like

Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending Now

Advertisement

Trending

Proudly Made In America | © 2022 M3 Media Management, LLC