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


To: (No name provided) who wrote (1126)2/24/2001 7:56:00 PM
From: CYBERKEN  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 12465
 
I can see from the diverse opinions expressed here about the actual criminality of the kid's activity that this debate needs to be more widespread. I hope the Times article generates more discussion nationally.

My own honest first impression on reading the article was outrage that we allow a government agency to harass, with a gang of 5 lawyers, a child posting privately on the internet in his home. My second impression is that there must something terribly wrong with his parents, and thus the kid may never have a chance to learn right from wrong. But I have to admit any sense of outrage for those who were foolish enough to by those stocks after reading his posts still eludes me. I will, however, hold out the possibility that I'm simply missing part of the point...



To: (No name provided) who wrote (1126)2/25/2001 9:56:37 PM
From: Tom C  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 12465
 
But no matter how wrong it was, it was NOT the equivelent of bank robbery.

What's the difference? White collar crime is never prosecuted to the same extent as blue collar crime. Is it any less ethical?