What "rights" to free speech?
I've been following this thread with a great deal of interest. Thought I'd throw in my two cents.
First of all, I am a little bit puzzled as to how this became a free speech issue. There is no free speech here. We are all guests of SI. It's their server, their web site, and their money which permits us to get all indignant and huffy about these weighty subjects. I myself have ranted, raved and generally made an ass out of myself over stocks and stock promoters I dislike. If SI decides to kick me off for *any* reason, I can elect to start my own web site and rant and rave there to my heart's content.
When I first heard about the Pluvia issue, I thought that it must be some sort of sophisticated scheme to publicize Westergaard's web site. I received an email from Pluvia assuring me that this was not a publicity stunt, so for now, I will work under that assumption.
John Westergaard pays for his own web site. He is entitled to say anything he wants...anything. If someone feels intimidated, threatened, slandered, defamed, or libeled, then that person may pursue civil litigation (...Your honor, some fat old geezer with a web site had the audacity to offer a reward for my real name because he was pissed at something I said. Please award me money.).
If John's speech crosses into some very narrow and well-defined no-no zones (such as publishing child pornography, making death threats against the president, etc.) he may then face criminal prosecution. I don't believe John's actions in the Pluvia matter - while inherently obnoxious - expose him to any civil or criminal liability. Bottom line - he can offer a reward or compensation to dig up information on anyone...it is not against the law to do so. He can also speculate freely about his target's motives. Next time you go through a supermarket checkout stand, take a peek at the National Enquirer - they do it all the time.
John Westergaard is a PR guy. He makes a living by saying nice things about his clients' stock. As long as that activity is legal - he is entitled to pursue it. The PR business is by its very nature sleazy and fraught with dirty tricks and deception (ever see those Chevron commercials with glowing images of white-tailed bunnies jumping through green meadows?) The stock PR biz is even dirtier. I figure it's caveat emptor. No one points a gun to your head and forces you to read it.
If you really don't like John, there are more effective ways of fighting back.
1) Don't buy any of his stock picks. Better yet, short his stock picks.
2) Write numerous letters of complaint to executives of the companies that do business with him.
3) Publicly express your outrage and trash his stock picks (of course, then you might get "Pluviad" - but hey...those are the breaks).
4) Write to the SEC.
5) Start a web site that satirizes Westergaard (already been done - and I must say...it's very amusing).
6) Call him a fat old geezer repeatedly.
There...now I feel better.
Bill |
