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.
Biotech / Medical : Pluvia vs. Westergaard

 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: Jeffrey S. Mitchell who wrote (694)8/30/1997 5:59:00 PM
From: Bill Wexler   of 1267
 
<<Should people on SI be beholden to the same rules and restrictions>>

If SI is not selling the information to investors - and representing it as bona-fide analysis of a company's stock, then the same rules would not apply.

If Westergaard sells financial information on his web site, then the product (the content of that information) falls under the rules and laws set forth by federal and local government. If Westergaard decides to make a public comment about how he feels about the genetic superiority of Jews vs. Christians...then that is protected speech. If John offers a reward to uncover a name...then that is protected speech. If John sells salad dressing, he is required by law to correcly label its ingredients; however, he is perfectly free to name it "Adolf's Ranch Style Dressing" and put a big swastika on the label if he wants to. The ingredients label - though it is a form of speech - is not protected by the first amendment, the rest of the label is.

In conclusion, John may run a pay-per-view web site. If someones pays for company information which turns out to be misleading, then John is in deep doo doo. If John decides to put a swastika on his web site, or post a reward for the identity of Pluvia...there's not much anyone can do about that.
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext