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.

Strategies & Market Trends : The Thread Formerly Known as No Rest For The Wicked -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: DJB who wrote (86733)	1/17/2000 1:40:00 PM
From: john p. carney	Respond to of 90042

Dennis, of course I agree wholeheartedly that free speech has and should have it's limits. I am just disgusted and repelled by the notion that one should be kept quiet merely by the threat of expensive legal proceedings. If that's where things are headed, then only the rich will have the benefit of free speech. I haven't seen one thing Mr. Cooper has posted that I would deem offensive or harrassing and the notion that he should shut up or cough up some money makes me sick. I've has a flame war or two with Mr. Luke on the PAIR thread when he was hyping a buyout there. Should I now expect a legal summons because I didn't fawn all over him like many on this thread? John

To: DJB who wrote (86733)	1/17/2000 1:56:00 PM
From: whyretire	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 90042

Don't the sexual harassment laws apply to the workplace only (lewd statements need to be made in the workplace with certain intent before these laws apply)? Also, it's not clear what you mean by "slander." Slander is the spoken action of libel (the written action of libel is defamation). E-mail has been defined by the courts as written, not verbal. I think libel, if that's what you're referring to, only applies where there is actual malice and distortion of fact (versus expression of opinion).