Gabe,
>A company has a responsibility to its shareholders. First they must increase shareholder value.<
Has this company increased shareholders value? Is resorting immediately to legal means to stifle a critic's voice increasing shareholders value?
Any company that makes it their business to monitor chat groups can most likely find an incident similar to this, where a person like John, is outspoken and less diplomatic in expressing negative opinions about the company. If you condone companies taking immediate legal means to protect attacks by posters, then SI and other chat groups will just consist of a bunch of dreamy eyed investors, in perpetual denial, forever supporting management, to the point where the stock price sinks to zero. People like John is good for chat groups. They strip away your rose colored glasses!
>This includes protecting the company from attacks which can threaten that value.<
It is a bit naive to think that taking legal means to stifle a critic is protecting the share value of a stock. Share value comes from management's actions in managing and growing the business competently. In fact, the opposite is true. Monitoring threads and looking for critics to stifle is NOT an action that will increase share value.
>If in Antares' legal opinion John's words are libellous then I would expect them to defend themselves vigorously which is what they are starting to do.<
There is a fine line between libel and expressing an opinion. Anyone can sue another claiming libel. Antares' lawyer of course will view John's words as libel. John's lawyer will see it otherwise. The only people who get rich will be the lawyers.
>Clearly he is out to get Antares for some personal reason. When he blindly attacks Antares he is attacking every shareholder, including me.<
Paranoia.... a typical symptom of a poster who idolizes and sees management as beyond reproach, and views any negative opinions about management as a personal attack.
>We all should try to be constructive or ask meaningful questions.<
>I support Antares' action, especially if it moves discussion on this forum into a more constructive realm.<
Meaning... "we should all be supportive of what management is doing". Another typical cheering leading symptom, very prevalent in threads.
You fans here are missing the big picture! You're just concerned over your penny stock holding. For a few lousy bucks in perhaps a poor choice of investment, you are quick to defend a company that is threatening a core principle in a democratic country, and that is, TO EXPRESS OPINIONS FREELY.
There is a fine line between libel and opinions. Already a few people here have decided to leave this thread because they view the company as trigger happy in resorting to legal means to stop their critics.
ALREADY, THE PRINCIPLE OF FREE SPEECH HAS BEEN VIOLATED! Some people are already scared off by the company. Don't you see the big picture? Or are you still engrossed in whether the stock price will go up or down by a few pennies?
Any publicly listed company should be thick skin. It should not resort to legal means (the big kahuna two by four) to stop negative postings in a chat group. If John is making potentialy libelous comments, an email to him warning him would stop him. To post a warning on SI and to use the big stick is inappropriate. It just depicts the sort of management culture of the organization. Unfortunately, the manner in which the company took action to stifle John has infringed on the principle of freedom of speech.
So get off your small horses, worried and protective over your penny stock investment, and think of the real and important principle at stake here!
|
