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.

Pastimes : Investment Chat Board Lawsuits -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: EL KABONG!!! who wrote (39)	7/16/1999 2:21:00 AM
From: Green Receipt	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 12465

I have a couple of opinions on this topic but I'll stay brief... in short: referring to 1st admendment is generally assumed to be an issue associated with the United States of America. the Internet is world wide... If you post in a country where their 1st admendment means something else who knows what would happen... no protection or total freedom from actions such as these? in reference to negative posting about a particular company, I see the value of it if it is completely false information being presented, but what happens to the independent stock analyzer who goes to the trouble to figure out whether or not to invest in the company and publishes a report? Say the person tells all of his followers, don't buy Company A stock, buy Company B stock instead. Will company A sue the person for giving a negative recommendation? Will company B sue for being placed in the same report as Company A (since #A has the bad rep)...? What about when a professional analyst changes his recommendation from Strong buy to HOLD or hold to sell....???? Will the company sue him because he lowered his rating? With the current trend companies are taking to 'sue' individuals for posting negative comments on internet space, i could see this scenario taking place some day. Wait you say. its professional, reputable analysis vs the average joe on the street... But really its all the same. If anyone says anything negative about any company they are setting themselves up for a lawsuit somewhere down the future. With world governments still making new laws on how to police the internet, something you say 10 years ago might just all of a sudden (by act of a new law) cause you to be liable for millions of dollars or silver or whatever the monetary unit happens to be. I see good and bad in this new trend. Good in the sense that it prevents people from giving a company a bad name on pure heresay. But at the same time I see it as bad because if the company disagrees with your viewpoint, u may just get sued. Perhaps someday (is there already?) there will be job openings in companies where all they do is police internet boards and initiate lawsuits against any and all negative publicity (bad comments). so much for being short....

To: EL KABONG!!! who wrote (39)	7/16/1999 2:37:00 AM
From: PCModem	Respond to of 12465

Excellent Article. Exposing scams is one thing. Harassment is another. I'm in favor of exposing all scams. I think one can do it without becoming a complete ass in the process. I think one can educate one's peers without insulting their intelligence (or apparent lack thereof) and without making enemies of them. I think it is possible to disagree without being disagreeable about it. Recently I tried to help someone. I came across an item belonging to them. I spent some time and money tracking down the person. I called. I introduced myself and asked a question designed to reveal to me if I had the right party (sorry to be vague, but the details have nothing to do with the point). I had the right person. I was very pleased! I started to explain what I had that belonged to them and said that I wanted to send it to them...that's as far as I got. The person on the other end decided I was trying to sell them something. Nothing could be farther from the truth. They screamed at me, called me a liar, would not let me explain or prove to them the real reason for my call. They hung up on me. I called back, they said if I called again they would notify the police. I did not call again. I did not give up however. Instead I tried another method entirely. A few weeks later I was able to get in touch with a relative of the person in question who helped me return to this person their property. Eventually they thanked me. But they had to hear the truth from someone else in order for it to get through to them. My point: Some people don't want to be helped or they are not in a frame of mind condusive to being helped. If that is the case, then let them be. If they are meant to be helped it will happen. No need to give anyone an excuse to call the police. Or to file a lawsuit. "No special protections against libeling or defaming a person apply to the Internet, experts said. Gray said that, in general, a statement posted on the Internet or elsewhere could be considered defamatory or libelous if it was specific, made with malicious intent, was "provably false" and caused measurable harm to the target." Good work Kerry! PCM