Wow, that's certainly a thought provoking question...
I'd love to know whether companies have the same rights as individuals. My guess is the courts would be more lenient on someone who fraudulently accused a company of being totally corrupt than an individual. Again my guess is that intent would be considered in greater detail as regards someone who defamed a company rather than an individual as companies don't really have "pain and suffering" per se. In other words, I could always claim that while you may have thought you were being humorous, you hurt my feelings and embarrassed me, whereas I doubt a company could claim the same thing.
Now, following that same thought process, if someone called a CEO "a totally incompetent manager", my guess is the courts wouldn't care, whereas if that same someone said the CEO was "a totally incompetent parent", I think the courts might take issue at that.
So, as I said earlier, I think what might make or break a case against a company critic is "intent". Was the person making the comments letting off steam? Where they part of an organized attempt to discredit a rival? Were they trying to gain financially from doing so?
Now, we can't lose sight of the fact that the ascribed comments are being made on the internet in a chat room. I think the problem is right now many people and companies equate the things we say here on SI with journalism and thus want to hold us to journalistic ethics. Even though for all intents and purposes we may now have as much impact on the price of a stock as they do, it's not really our fault. Thus, sad to say, even though Mr. X may be fraudulently twisting facts for his own personal gain, I don't think the courts would much care, unless, of course, he was a broker in violation of securities law. Assuming he were not, it's really has to be a judgement call on SI whether said person was acting in good faith under their rules.
- Jeff |
