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: mmmary who wrote (4277)	2/20/2003 11:01:10 PM
From: StockDung	Respond to of 12465

RE:Spam emails:Office of the Secretary UNITED STATES OF AMERICA FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20580 January 28, 2003 Dirck Hargraves, Esq. Counsel Telecommunications Research and Action Center P.O. Box 27279 Washington, DC 20005 Susan Grant Vice President of Public Policy National Consumers League 1701 K Street, NW, Suite 1200 Washington, DC 20006 Ken McEldowney Executive Director Consumer Action 717 Market Street, Suite 310 San Francisco, CA 94103 Re: Petition from the Telecommunications Research & Action Center ("TRAC"), National Consumers League ("NCL"), and Consumer Action ("CA") for Rulemaking Dear Mr. Hargraves, Ms. Grant, & Mr. McEldowney: This is in response to the above-referenced Petition requesting that the Federal Trade Commission initiate a trade regulation rule proceeding aimed at adopting a rule under Section 18 of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. § 57a, that would prohibit certain deceptive aspects of unsolicited commercial email ("UCE" or "spam"). The Commission recognizes that the Petition identifies an important consumer protection concern: the proliferation of spam that misrepresents the source, sender, subject, or ability to stop receiving future messages. The Petition asserts that consumers and businesses are being injured by such practices. The primary effect of a Section 18 rule would be to "define with specificity" acts or practices that are unlawful - that is, that violate Section 5(a) of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. § 45(a) because they are unfair (i.e., they cause or are likely to cause substantial injury to consumers which is not reasonably avoidable by consumers themselves and not outweighed by countervailing benefits to consumers or to competition, 15 U.S.C. § 45(n)) or are deceptive (i.e, they are likely to mislead consumers acting reasonably under the circumstances about a material fact. Cliffdale Associates, Inc., 103 F.T.C. 110, 164-65 (1984)). Thus, such a rule would eliminate the need to establish in each case that a particular practice relating to spam is unfair or deceptive, and thus violates Section 5(a) of the FTC Act. However, proving that a targeted practice is unfair or deceptive and therefore violates Section 5(a) is relatively straightforward in most cases. A more difficult task would not be addressed by such a rule: identifying and locating the actual spammer. A rule would offer no enhancement of the Commission's ability to accomplish this important aspect of its law enforcement. The Commission therefore has concluded that the possible benefits promised by such a rule do not justify the significant expenditure of time and resources a rulemaking would require. Rather than engage in a rulemaking, the Commission believes that, at this time, it can more efficiently and effectively protect the interests of consumers by aggressively continuing to direct law enforcement activities already available under Section 5(a) against particular businesses or individuals that make false or misleading representations in spam email. We emphasize, however, our belief that spam is an enormous and increasing problem for consumers and businesses. To address various issues surrounding spam and to explore potential solutions to the spam problem, we will hold a three-day public forum on April 30-May 2, 2003. We encourage you to participate in this forum, and we hope that it will help inform and further address the issues raised in the Petition. The information and analysis you provided have contributed significantly to the Commission's consideration of the issues raised by the Petition. The Commission and its staff look forward to your continued cooperation with our law enforcement and education efforts in this area. By direction of the Commission. Donald S. Clark Secretary

To: mmmary who wrote (4277)	2/21/2003 8:43:26 PM
From: StockDung	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 12465

Mary, further vindication!!->Slammed in chat rooms, brokerage files lawsuit Thomson Kernaghan Katherine Macklem Financial Post Yahoo! Inc., operator of one of the world's most popular Web sites, is being sued for libel by Thomson Kernaghan & Co. Ltd., a privately held Canadian investment dealer. The lawsuit claims Yahoo! and a string of other defendants were "reckless, malicious, vicious, callous, reprehensible, shocking, oppressive and high-handed." The suit is one of the first filed in Canada against Yahoo! It is significant because it delves into the largely uncharted territory of Internet libel and the responsibility of both the individuals who write defamatory messages and the operators that provide the forums, such as chat rooms, for discussions. Silicon Investor Inc., which operates financial bulletin boards, is also named in the suit, as are a handful of individuals known only by the pen names they sign to postings on the World Wide Web, such as "Black John," "Tech," and "Danimal 2002." Thomson Kernaghan says a press release and other messages posted on the Web were malicious and portray both it and Mark Valentine, a second plaintiff in the suit and a Thomson Kernaghan vice-president and director, as acting illegally. The case, filed in Ontario Court, general division, is the latest in a volley of lawsuits involving Thomson Kernaghan and Mr. Valentine regarding controversial investments made by the firm. Most of the other lawsuits aim in the opposite direction, with Thomson Kernaghan as the target, and claim the brokerage and Mr. Valentine have illegally manipulated stock prices. It is these allegations of manipulation that triggered the libel suit, which singles out a press release posted on the Web (and also disseminated by newswire services) by Texas-based Restaurant Teams International Inc. <snip> Two of Restaurant Teams' principals and its stock promoter are also named in the Thomson Kernaghan suit. The libel suit claims a total of $5-million and asks the court for "the imposition of punitive, aggravated and exemplary damages against the defendants." The brokers will ask Yahoo! and Silicon Investor to disclose the true identities and addresses of people who have posted messages that it deems offensive. To date, only a handful of libel suits have been launched concerning material posted on the Internet. People falsely believe they can hide behind anonymous messages, said Michael Geist, a law professor at the University of Ottawa who specializes in Internet law. They need to have a better sense of what happens when they post messages, he said. "Just as there are limitations on the right to free speech, there are on the right to anonymity," Mr. Geist said. Spokespeople for both Yahoo! and Silicon Investor said they do not comment on lawsuits. In the past, Yahoo! and other chat-room operators have complied with court orders to provide information on their users' identities. In addition to the Restaurant Teams lawsuit, Thomson Kernaghan has been named by about a half-dozen companies in other lawsuits accusing it and the funds it manages of short-selling stock after investing in convertible debentures in the companies. In an interview in November, Lee Simpson, Thomson Kernaghan's chief executive, denied any wrongdoing. Full story: nationalpost.com - Jeff