Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

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.

Technology Stocks : Rambus (RMBS) - Eagle or Penguin -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: richard surckla who wrote (22126)	6/8/1999 8:45:00 PM
From: Brian1970	Respond to of 93625

I am an attorney, but do not purport to represent myself as a first amendment maven. I have represented people in defamation actions before, and libel (written remarks, as opposed to "slander," which is for spoken remarks) issues have come up. In any case, just to clarify, damages are not presumed because of Edelstone's professional capacity, but because the remarks would tend to harm Edelstone's reputation as a professional. Further, I'm not sure what Edelstone's burden would be here, as far as proving his claim. He may or may not be a public figure (general or limited purpose), because he has injected himself into the public arena somewhat. I'm sure there is caselaw out there that speaks to this point. Suffice it to say that if he is deemed a public figure, his burden of proof is much greater.