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 : Temp. Home of Cooperative Group-Trading -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: mark calder who wrote (447)7/6/1999 9:59:00 PM
From: Lola  Respond to of 790
 
Freedom of speech is a two way street. Does this mean that hypsters will be forced to stop hyping? Pretty soon nobody will be allowed to speak? It's going to get pretty quiet out there.

I think what Auric seems to have done here is a little different from freedom of speech.... not knowing all the details it's hard to comment but what you describe is similar to something someone else did with a doctored up press release. That guy didn't even personally benefit from his game but he was charged and convicted. That's the way it should be.

Freedom of speech does not protect you from being charged with other crimes, if those crimes are provable whether you personally gained from the crime or not.

Lola:)



To: mark calder who wrote (447)7/7/1999 1:39:00 AM
From: Mama Bear  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 790
 
mark, sure, these threads highest and best use should be to go 'rah, rah, sis boom, bah'. Shorts should be seen and not heard.

Get a grip. That 'fire in a crowded theatre' analogy is not close to applicable to posting opinions on an Internet opinion thread.

"If Mr. Auric reposted a touched up press release he went over the line and should pay for it.

If, if, if. Why do I doubt that occurred? Why do I wonder about the context of the post if it did? Why is it every person that supports this suit has been on the opposite side of the trade from Auric? What about the other defendants?

Barb