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: The Philosopher who wrote (2381)	1/18/2002 12:29:23 PM
From: Jeffrey S. Mitchell	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 12465

failure to comply with a subpoena can subject you to legal liability Then why doesn't AOL comply with every subpoena they are served upon? Is AOL thumbing its nose at the legal system? No, AOL has set standards to differentiate between subpoenas that truly are relevant to a particular court case and those that are simply fishing expeditions or harassment. AOL cites case law, as I've pointed out, on their legal page for justification. As you point out, "The whole field of subpoenas of message board poster inforamtion is... still in significant legal limbo..." If we take an optimistic viewpoint that the law is merely a reflection of the moral values of a society, then SI should act morally and, if challenged in court, etch their values into law. - Jeff

To: The Philosopher who wrote (2381)	1/18/2002 1:14:10 PM
From: Mighty_Mezz	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 12465

re: "if some but not all of the 41 move to quash," Perhaps a "class action" response would be the way to go. All 41 could split the cost of paying one attorney to file one motion to quash the whole thing. The judge might prefer having to make only one ruling instead of 41. Think of the savings in paper! ;) ... Mezz -

To: The Philosopher who wrote (2381)	1/18/2002 3:04:36 PM
From: Matt Brown	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 12465

>>Matt over on IH said he would just crumple up such a subpoena and do a Michael Jordan into the nearest trash can with it. But he doesn't realize, perhaps, that failure to comply with a subpoena can subject you to legal liability.<< Correct. But later on in the next few messages, you point out exactly my stance on the issue. >>But as a business, SI needs to balance the costs and benefits of that path with the costs and benefits of complying with the subpoena.<< My call would be, I'd rather deal with the legal liability, if it even existed. You have to think like a business person and not a robot. If you comply with THAT subpoena, you surely don't have to worry about the legal aspects anymore. Yes that is true. But on the flip side, you will no longer have a business to run, either, due to the instant mass exodus. SI complies with that subpoena, this site is over with. Nobody will sign up for a membership. If they don't comply, they MIGHT get dragged into court. I'd say "Bring it on" so I could prove how the subpoena is complete BS. At least then, you have fought the good fight, made your move as a business person, and showed you stood for what was right. MB