SI
SI
discoversearch

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.
Pastimes : Jonathan Lebed, 14 Year Old Boy Fined 1/4 Million by SEC
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: The Street who wrote (86)9/22/2000 11:53:55 AM
From: donjuan_demarco  Read Replies (2) of 172
 
It appears that there are four variables in determining whether the message is illicit.

(1) How many times a message is posted.
(2) How many aliases were used to post it.
(3) The text of the message.
(4) The poster's state of mind at the time it was posted.

For example, if "BUY MTEI-- IT IS GOING TO GO THRU THE ROOF!" is posted 100 times under three different aliases, and at the time of the postings the poster intended to dump into the pump, it appears it would be illegal.

Under the same circumstances, what about if the message read: "BUY MTEI-- SOMEDAY IT WILL BE HIGHER THAN IT IS TODAY!"

or

"BUY MTEI-- IT ISN'T THE GREATEST STOCK IN THE WORLD, BUT IT'S PRETTY DAMN GOOD!"

Or, assume that the original "BUY MTEI-- IT IS GOING THRU THE ROOF!" message was posted 100 times under various aliases, but that the poster honestly believed that it WOULD go through the roof?

Given all the possible variables, I believe that it is literally IMPOSSIBLE to know with any certainty whether a post (or a series of posts) violate federal or state laws.

How can you charge someone with a violation of a law if it is impossible to define the paramaters of that law?

And, though it has been 15 years since I studied Constitutional Law, I believe that if the Justice Department or a state brought criminal charges under any such statutes, the Supreme Court would overturn any convictions because the law is overly broad (i.e., it infringes on permissible speech and impermissible speech).
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  

HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2025 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News