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.
Strategies & Market Trends : Banned.......Replies to the A@P thread.

 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: rrufff who wrote (3777)5/4/2005 12:27:31 AM
From: olivier asser  Read Replies (2) of 5425
 
cyber.law.harvard.edu

I'm interested in your take on this ruling, because this federal judge:

1. Invoked anonymous political statements made by some of our most famous statesmen;

2. Those statements had no clear financial motive, as those in question in the above case do, traders making statements anonymously for financial gain, in aid of their financial interest; and

3. The Boston Tea Party, a true display of financial rebellion, was done in person, no mugger black masks, no anonymity.

This judge went far too far IMHO. Free speech in the political process is one thing; posting under assumed names in aid of financial schemes is something quite different, which I believe is self-serving garbage our founders never intended to protect.

Someone tell me I'm wrong, and that the 1st Amendment was intended to protect wire fraud.

I understand what the judge was trying to do, to protect free speech, but my goodness this is going too far, and I hope he is appealed in a narrow way so that the law that is set is clearly targeted.
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext