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 : Brokerage-Chat Site Securities Fraud: A Lawsuit
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: Jon Tara who wrote (2303)7/24/2003 11:21:31 PM
From: CountofMoneyCristo   of 3143
 
Yes, and I am sure since you are checking Cornell that you realize that SEC is empowered to make regulations, and that the Act is subject to interpretation of the common law, since we are not laboring under the Napoleonic Code. Therefore:

___________________________________________________________

216.239.37.104

The exemption for publishers also extends to publishers of websites, provided that the website publication is “bona fide” and of “general and regular” circulation. A website publication is “bona fide” where it contains disinterested commentary and analysis (that is, the publisher is not encouraging readers to invest in securities in which the publisher has invested or intends to invest) and does not constitute promotional material for a security in which the publisher has an interest or for which the publisher is compensated. A website may not be considered “bona fide” when the publisher emails advice to its subscribers or answers questions in a chatroom. A website publication may not be of “general and regular” circulation where updates to the website are triggered by specific market activity or events affecting or having the ability to affect the securities industry. See SEC v. Park (a/k/a “Tokyo Joe”), 99 F. Supp. 2d 889 (N.D. Ill. 2000).

__________________________________________________________

216.239.39.104

The retention of the Investment Advisers Act approach provides a better balance between First Amendment concerns and protection of investors from non-"bona fide" publicizing of investment advice. The exclusion in Section 102(15)(D) is intended to exclude publishers of Internet or electronic media, but only if the Internet or electronic media publication or website satisfies the "bona fide" and "publication of general, regular, and paid circulation" requirements. Cf. SEC v. Park, 99 F. Supp. 2d 889, 895-896 (N.D. Ill. 2000) (court declined to dismiss complaint against an Internet website when there were allegations that the website was not "bona fide" or of "general and regular circulation").
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