Judge’s refusal to let Elon Musk out of his SEC settlement notes the limits of his right to free speech

Illustration by Kristen Radtke / The Verge; Getty Images

Most of us don't have restrictions on Musk's tweets. They are a result of a settlement with the Securities and Exchange Commission over his infamous _funding secured _ Musk's _ Musk's Musk's Musk's Musk's Musk's Musk's Musk's Musk's Musk's Musk's Musk US District Judge Lewis Liman ruled against Musk, letting the agreement stand despite Musk's complaints that he was coerced into taking the deal.

One of the things Musk wanted was for the court to stop a subpoena from the SEC for information to determine if a poll about selling 10 percent of his stock had been done first. Musk complained of an endless investigation that served as an attempt to chill his exercise of First Amendment rights.

The evidence presented showed that the SEC is entitled to investigate the issue if the court had ruled against it.

Related

Elon Musk’s Twitter plans are a huge can of worms

The judge didn't buy Musk's argument that the consent decree intrudes on his First Amendment rights. 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.

Musk, by entering into the consent decree in 2018, agreed to the provision requiring the pre-approval of any such written communications that contain, or reasonably could contain, information material to Tesla or its shareholders. He cannot now complain that this provision violates his First Amendment rights.

Musk's other arguments also flopped. The judge decided that the SEC's three sets of inquiries were incomprehensible, as a result of his claim about the number of demands placed on him and his company.

Musk was not forced to enter into the consent decree; rather, “for [his] own strategic purposes, [Musk], with the advice and assistance of counsel, entered into these agreements voluntarily, in order to secure the benefits thereof, including finality.” Securities and Exchange Commission v. Conradt, 309 F.R.D. 186, 187–88 (S.D.N.Y. 2015). Musk cannot now seek to retract the agreement he knowingly and willingly entered by simply bemoaning that he felt like he had to agree to it at the time but now—once the specter of the litigation is a distant memory and his company has become, in his estimation, all but invincible—wishes that he had not.