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.

Non-Tech : Conseco Insurance (CNO) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: 44magnumpower who wrote (3401)	10/5/2000 5:41:39 PM
From: StockDung	Respond to of 4155

And in case you think that is defaming or liable, read this, you "Kmart Johnnie Cochran" ;-): In Ferlauto v. Hamsher (1999) 74 Cal. App. 4th 1394, the court dealt with a case involving First Amendment rights as opposed to alleged defamation. Among the many alleged defamatory statements made by the Defendant in Ferlauto were statements that the Plaintiff was a 'Kmart Johnnie Cochran'; a 'loser wannabe lawyer'; a 'creepazoid attorney'; a 'little ######'; and among the 'meanest, greediest, low-blowing #############'. (id. at 1398). The court, in ruling that the statements which were alleged to be libelous were not actionable, held that in order to overcome the freedom of speech protections of the First Amendment, a Plaintiff must allege a statement that is provably false. Statements do not imply a provably false factual assertion and, thus, cannot form the basis of a defamation action if they cannot reasonably be interpreted as stating actual facts about an individual. Thus, a rhetorical hyperbole, vigorous eptithets, lusty and imaginative expressions of contempt and language used in a loose and figurative sense have all been accorded constitutional protection. (id. at 1401) The court went on to analyze the language used on a point by point basis and found that none of it overcame the protection of the First Amendment. The court held that one must examine the totality of the circumstances under which the statements were made (id. at 1401-1405) and that the names used by the Defendant were either common characterizations, caricature, imaginative expression, rhetorical hyperbole or simple name calling, ie. of the 'Sticks and stones may break my bones......' variety. (id. at 1403-1404; See also, Nicosia v. DeRooy, (1999 N. Dist. Cal.) 72 F. Supp 2d 1093)

To: 44magnumpower who wrote (3401)	10/5/2000 5:48:59 PM
From: F. Lynn	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 4155

Mr. Pink, Be careful- there is a long history of tort law concerning people who called other people 'fat.' In 1756, zebediah zenger called caleb whittington, a gunpowder merchant, 'portly' in the middle of a crowded performance of 'A Midsummer's Night Dream.' Zenger was then sued for ten shillings, a pair of boots, and a gallon of rum. Although Zenger won the first round, the decision was reversed on appeal, and an additional half dozen pigs were awarded as punitive damages. The Supreme Court ruled that free speech and the first amendment does not allow one to 'call someone portly in a crowded theater.' The basic legal premise behind this decision has been reaffirmed countless times in the last 250 years, and IO would urge caution if you ever feel the urge to call Irwin Jacobs a fat loser who can't pick stocks again. Which he is.

To: 44magnumpower who wrote (3401)	10/5/2000 11:33:18 PM
From: Mr. Pink	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 4155

Mr. P$nk is well-acquainted with the legal system of these great United States. He is also aware that litigation is the true sport of kings, a game that He is most happy to play at any time. First of all Irving the Liquidator is a corporate CEO and a public figure and therefore is subject to a much more satirical reparte than a private personage. Secondly, Mr. P$nk made stated opinions and facts in His post. Example: Irwin Jacobs appears rosey cheeked in a certain photo. Fact. One could conclude that he enjoys a drink. Opinion. Irwin is fat. Fact. He would be happy to subpoena fat Irv's medical records and subject him to an exam. But based on AMA standards of appropriate weight for height and fat as a % of body weight, Irv looks like he could lose a few. What particular statement do take issue with? In any even, Mr. P$nk would love to be sued and to have the ability in the discovery process to obtain all of fat Irv's trading records to verify Irving's statements about his position size and to expose his alleged margin position rumored (but not verified) to be acheived via the derivitives department at DLJ. That Irwin Jacobs is a blowhard, a stuffed shirt and was a second rate wannabe raider and who operated with the assistance of convicted felon, Michael Milken is both a statement of fact and opinion. Furthermore, He would like to state once and for all that there is absolutely no evidence that Irwin Jacobs suffers from dementia. Before you try to restrain Mr. P$nk's constitutional rights to free speach, you better learn who you are dealing with. He is not some small time player that is easily intimidated by bogus legal action. Mr. P$nk, fully aware of His rights