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.

Microcap & Penny Stocks : TGL WHAAAAAAAT! Alerts, thoughts, discussion. -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Jim Bishop who wrote (67603)	10/19/2000 7:50:57 AM
From: arkmen	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 150070

I read the article you posted concerning the Court's ruling that posters be identified to allow them to be names as defendants in the libel suit. I'm inclined to side with the court on this issue because I'm a big fan of taking personal responsibility for one's actions. One of the attorney comments printed in the article portrayed the ruling as forcing people to self-censor themselves. The comment sounded like that was a bad thing. I disagree. People censor their own comments everyday--and they should, especially if their comments are going to be libelous. I've never minded people speaking their mind, even when I disagree with their opinion. However, when their opinion rises to the level of libel I think they should be held accountable. Lawyers for the ACLU asked the court to make a factual determination whether the statements were libelous first before forcing disclosure of the names of the posters. That kind of approach would not work as it would force courts to litigate the same issue twice. First, Courts would have to hear all the testimony of the case to deterrmine if libel occurred. If it found that to be the case, the poster names would be revealed. Of course, then the posters would want a 2nd trial where they could participate and challenge the evidence. They would have a due process right to challenge the evidence and have their own trial. In essence, you'd have two trials and that is simply not practical or necessary. When the initial "complaint" was filed with the court it contained factual allegations that spelled out what the statements were that were considered to be false. The judge can read them and say to himself "if these words were said...could they be libelous". If he concludes yes, he orders disclosure and let the posters defend their own words. My tax money pays for the court's time and I do not want my money defending the statements of posters who choose to hide behind anonymity and sling libelous stones. I believe they should be responsible for their own actions and defend themselves. ARKMEN