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 : Investment Chat Board Lawsuits
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: dantecristo who wrote (5507)1/14/2004 11:08:02 AM
From: dantecristo  Read Replies (1) of 12465
 
[VAR & VSEA] ANSWER TO PETITION FOR REVIEW [in the California Supreme Court]
"The Court of Appeal also expressed reluctance to enjoin defamatory speech became of "the difficulty of determining in advance whether or not a particular publication will be defamatory." (Opinion, p. 30.) While this concern may have some validity in connection with content-based restrictions affecting protected speech (Aguilar, 21 Cal.4th at 187-88 [Kennard dissenting]), or where matters of public concern are at issue, it does not apply here. There is no reasonable possibility that valuable speech protected by the First Amendment will be lost by virtue of an injunction prohibiting, for example, false statements that a private figure "engaged in adultery or extramarital affairs" or "videotaped [a] bathroom." (AA 889.)"

geocities.com
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  

HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2026 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News