Right, this is about contempt of court, not actual fraud, good point.
It sounds like you think "contempt of court" shouldn't matter. I think it should. It's hard to have a society with rule of law if people ignore court orders, even cool people like Elon.
Contempt of court matters, but it is also a high bar. It remains to be seen if the court will determine that a fellow saying "I love the courts, I'm sorry about the things that I said outside of trading hours" is in contempt.
My guess is that the SEC's definition and the court's definition will not agree.
Before disagreeing with this, go back and read the terms of the original settlement. A lot of people are talking smack (on both sides) about things that aren't even in that agreement.
I've only read the SEC's motion (https://assets.bwbx.io/documents/users/iqjWHBFdfxIU/ragxTxYi...). I haven't been able to track down the court's final judgement document in the settlement. That said, I don't agree with your portrayal here. The SEC's claim is just that Musk didn't pre-clear the tweet, which was a court-backed requirement in the settlement, which makes him in contempt of court.
The other stuff, like about the TV interview, is evidence that he's not acting in good faith, so the court shouldn't cut him slack here - or, in the motion's words, that he "has not made a diligent or good faith effort to comply with the provision of the Court’s Final Judgment requiring pre-approval of his written communications about Tesla. Less than two months after the Court entered its Final Judgment, Musk publicly indicated that he was not serious about compliance with this provision."
It sounds like you think "contempt of court" shouldn't matter. I think it should. It's hard to have a society with rule of law if people ignore court orders, even cool people like Elon.