TSIG.com TIGI (formerly TSIG) Message Board

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Microcap & Penny Stocks : TSIG.com TIGI (formerly TSIG)

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: Jazzbo who wrote (40044)	3/5/2000 1:39:00 PM
From: ztect	Read Replies (1) of 44908

Okay one more post for today, that only an attorney like Tim could really appreciate which was originally address to a bonehead on RB..... Interesting but bone headed contention by a "basher" "....Isn't "the Constitution" great! It allows everyone to share their opinions. I just love these idiots (oh, excuse me.....investors) who try and scare others away from making a "negative comment" about a stock they currently own...." This particular basher goes on to say his comments are material "facts" after repeatedly referring to the company as a "scam", "shell", "front" and with other emotionally laden language while drawing conclusions not specifically stated as "fact" in SEC filed documentation. He uses the First Amendment as his shield. But obviously this idiot doesn't realize that according to the Federal Law you can't yell fire in a crowded theater when he for a "fact" can't say that there is a fire. Per Judge Turgeon's findings on a case argued succesfully in Superior Court: "The right of free speech and address is a shield and not a constitutional sword...It needs no citation of legal precedent to announce that the freedom of speech is not absolute. Speech specifically designed to coerce through fear and intimidation are not essential parts of the exposition of ideas and they are of such insignificant social value as a step to the truth that any benefit that may be derived from them is outweighed by the societal interest in order and morality. Repeated acts and words...are not protected by the First Amendment" Heck, and this was a decision on a criminal case, not a civil one where the rules of evidence are much more lenient. In civil matters regarding libel, there are a multitude of other case examples demonstrating how truly ignorant certain people are, like the one to whom I responded on RB, who yield the First Amendment around as an offensive weapon and have little to no concept of anything. z

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next