By Tom Hals

(Reuters) -A U.S. judge slammed Elon Musk on Wednesday for trying escape a settlement with regulators requiring oversight of his Telsa Inc tweets, saying the billionaire was “bemoaning” the 2018 deal now that he felt Tesla was “invincible.”

The ruling comes a day after the Twitter Inc board accepted Musk’s $44 billion deal for the social media platform.

Musk’s lawyers had sought to terminate the 2018 consent decree that resolved SEC securities fraud charges and argued the regulator’s pursuit of Musk “crossed the line into harassment” and impeded his constitutional right to free speech.

U.S. District Judge Lewis Liman in Manhattan rejected those arguments.

“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,” wrote Liman.

Telsa did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Musk has been escalating his attacks on the SEC and earlier this month he referred to the regulator as “those bastards.”

The judge also denied a Musk request to quash a SEC subpoena to Musk and Tesla to determine if tweets on Nov. 6 were vetted before they were published. Musk’s tweets asked readers if they supported his selling 10% of Tesla stock and he said he would abide by the poll results.

A majority did, and the poll caused Tesla’s share price to fall. Musk has since sold more than $16 billion of Tesla stock.

Liman said it was “unsurprising” that the SEC would have questions about the unusual manner in which Musk went about deciding to sell his stock.

Musk calls himself a free speech absolutist and has criticized Twitter’s policies that moderate speech and are aimed at curtailing harassment.

“By ‘free speech,’ I simply mean that which matches the law,” Musk tweeted on Tuesday. “If people want less free speech, they will ask government to pass laws to that effect. Therefore, going beyond the law is contrary to the will of the people.”

(Reporting By Peter HendersonEditing by Chizu Nomiyama)