I agree, this is a poor decision. Although the case would have likely been lopsided and uninteresting, this doesn't set a good precedent. I also must take objection to the description of this relating to actions of a "fictional character"; such statements undermine the canon status of the game engine and also don't make sense considering that all of this is fictional.
I guess I will explain more in detail my decision.
I do not believe the Supreme Court can simulate fantasy court case like that. The main reason being basically due process. How could this fictional character "Elon Musk" be represented realistically? He's not even a real person in this game.
I'm not even against this kind of "fun stories", it's just to me the Supreme Court isn't going to host court cases where the accused person doesn't exist.
It's main point against it.
Elon Musk is, by the laws which established the game engine, a real person in the game. This is not a disputable fact. And constitutionally, being that Elon Musk acted in violation of federal law, his case falls under the jurisdiction of the supreme court. Presumably, his case would be represented by a player. Maybe a volunteer, or maybe there would have to be some sort of lottery system, there's several ways of potentially doing it. But a lack of creativity isn't my problem.
