I think you're missing my point.
If someone commits fraud, he's not protected by the first amendment. For example, I may not misrepresent the contents of a food product that I sell to the public - the FDA could shut me down and prosecute me. In the same manner, when you *sell* investment advice, you must follow certain SEC guidelines. If you are a customer of Westergaard's, and feel that he has made criminal misrepresentations, then file a complaint with the SEC.
Now if I get on a soapbox and start slinging mud at a company, individual, politician, etc., then I'm protected by the 1st amendment. The target may then pursue civil litigation (corporations sometimes use SLAPP lawsuits to silence their critics). If the soapbox is not public, then the owner of the soapbox may kick me off any time simply because he doesn't appreciate the content of my speech.
The Pluvia - Westergaard fiasco falls into that second category. You are going to have a tough time finding and proving criminal deception/fraud.
You wrote:
<<Now that Westergaard has an SI account, he should be allowed to post his opinions, no matter how slanted and biased, on any thread he wishes.>>
Really? Do you own SI? |
