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: Anthony@Pacific who wrote (2742)	4/18/2002 9:43:46 AM
From: dantecristo	Respond to of 12465

[VAR & VSEA] "Court Issues Stay in Case Over Web Defamation By Shannon Lafferty The Recorder April 18, 2002 The two defendants who were found to have defamed their former employer with postings on the Internet won't be going to jail anytime soon. On Tuesday, the Sixth District Court of Appeal granted a temporary stay of contempt proceedings and an injunction aimed at Michelangelo Delfino and Mary Day. The court also stayed efforts to collect damages and ordered briefing. In writs filed with the Sixth District last week, Jon Eisenberg, the defendants' appellate lawyer, said the two faced the imminent threat of being taken into custody at a debtor's hearing that had been scheduled for Wednesday. At a previous hearing, Delfino had invoked his Fifth Amendment rights when questioned about his finances and use of computers. Santa Clara Superior Court Judge Jack Komar had ruled that Delfino could not invoke the Fifth Amendment in the civil proceedings brought by his former employers, Varian Medical Systems and Varian Semiconductor Associates Inc., and two Varian managers. "It's good news to the extent it means that all of us -- the judge, counsel and litigants -- can take a deep breath and pause while the court of appeal decides the petitions," said Eisenberg, a partner in the Oakland office of Encino's Horvitz & Levy. The stay also affects a hearing, set for July, on whether Day and Delfino are in violation of a permanent injunction that requires Day and Delfino to remove libelous postings and refrain from repeating specific libelous statements. "We are certainly not concerned about the court's scrutiny concerning the injunction," said Lynne Hermle, the Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe partner representing Varian. "I do hope the court will lift the stay quickly with respect to the discovery for the contempt proceeding." In the writs filed with the Sixth District, Eisenberg argued that the injunction, entered after the jury returned its verdict in December, is an unconstitutional prior restraint on speech. He also argued that the damages verdict should be reversed because the case was wrongly tried on the theory of libel versus slander, adding that special damages can't be recovered under California's slander statute. " law.com

To: Anthony@Pacific who wrote (2742)	4/18/2002 10:59:52 AM
From: Jeffrey S. Mitchell	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 12465

Tony, if any stock message board owner can get $10 a month out of their clientele given what users are used to paying (or not paying) for sites like Yahoo, Raging Bull, and SI, then more power to them because they must be doing something right. As for one perk being free legal representation by a top notch California lawyer, while it sounds like a good deal, I would advise people to take additional precautions. For example, most homeowners policies cover defamation. If they don't, a rider for personal liability goes for a mere $49 or so. I'd advise anyone who plans to spend even a moderate amount of time on message boards to get it. Important caveat: such coverage does not apply to anyone who is sued for defamation related to their work. Thus, don't criticize your co-workers, and if you trade for a living, be very careful what you say on stock related chat boards. Your insurance company has an obligation to defend you no matter where you are sued. If they don't, you can go after them. I'm not sure what good a California lawyer would do someone if they were sued, for example, in Connecticut. I would also fear that any lawyer appointed to me but paid for by a message board might, if push comes to shove, side with the one signing the checks. I think the best use of a message board house attorney would be to protect the privacy of members. One worry about paying for use of a chat site is the knowledge related information could be used to identify you if subpoenad. Recall Gary Dobry has already tried to subpoena credit card records of SI members. If not for the TMRT ruling in WA state, where SI is located, who knows if SI would have simply rolled over as Lycos (based in MA) was willing to do if those subpoenad didn't file to have it quashed. It would be great policy for a message board to vigorously challenge all subpoenas for information in an attempt to establish rules in their jurisdiction similar to those in WA. So, in summary, while I'd say a house attorney charged with vigorously protecting the rights of the members is a wonderful idea, I wouldn't advertise it as complete legal protection. - Jeff