PhaseWhite
Member
Beyond solicitation I believe the question here is also that of bad faith and the question of whether Lopez and co-conspirators profited from publishing those materials, knowingly putting Tesla in a falsely negative light. Business Insider also doesn't have a spotless background, according to Wikipedia:
"Business Insider's CEO and Editor-In-Chief Henry Blodget is a Yale history graduate who previously worked on Wall Street until he was banned for life from the securities industry because of his violations of securities laws and subsequent civil trial, which ended with a $2 million fine plus a $2 million disgorgement and the permanent ban in 2003."
For example it an was interesting coincidence that the timing of negative articles was often conveniently timed to $TSLA weekly option expires. We'd often get a negative headline a few hours before expiry, when expiring out-of-money options could be purchased very, very cheaply due to their very low residual time value, and temporary price action could offer significant leverage.
If such links are proven then I think the First Amendment will offer very little protection.
There's also other significant jurisdictions outside the U.S. that have a much dimmer view on journalists lying and have no First Amendment protections.
(IANAL and just speculating here, of course.)
Interesting, I wasn't aware of Blodget's securities ban. I doubt we'll see any SEC investigation here but this does explain a lot about Business Insider apparent manipulation goals.