Thank you for your concern, but let me clarify the state of the law. I am not lecturing either.
Defamation is libel and slander. Libel is written.
My (written) "statement" is that this is what that guy posted on the RB thread. That statement is true. Truth is a complete defense to an action for libel.
IF I had said that his statement were true, that would be a different statement from the statement that that was what he posted.
Even if I had made the statement, (assuming it is false, which I have no way of knowing and that is why I posted it) then it is what is called PRIVELEDGED.
I.e. it may BE libel, but you still win the suit. It is PROTECTED.
It falls into what is called "Fair Comment". WE have a business interest in the information therefore it is conditionally protected. So we can say pretty much QUESTION what we want as long as it isn't 'mean' and is done to value the company.
"Conditionally protected" means you can lose the defense IF you said it with MALICE. And it has to be ACTUAL (real) malice under a great case named TIMES V. SULLIVAN.
Malice means hatred or ill will.
I think that if you said something bad just to dump the stock, that would be ill will.
The long and short of it is that we HAVE A RIGHT to know whether this new guy is a bad actor.
The guys that are being popped right now by some companies are "bad actors", ie there main purpose is to manipulate the stock with known untruths.
This is not only defamation it is a SECURTIES violation of 17B of the 1934 act.
These are general views, you cannot rely on them as legal advise.
Duke, J. |
