To: Jon Tara who wrote (2303 ) 7/24/2003 11:21:31 PM From: CountofMoneyCristo Respond to Yes, and I am sure since you are checking Cornell that you realize that SEC is empowered to make regulations, and that the Act is subject to interpretation of the common law, since we are not laboring under the Napoleonic Code. Therefore:216.239.37.104 The exemption for publishers also extends to publishers of websites, provided that the website publication is “bona fide” and of “general and regular” circulation. A website publication is “bona fide” where it contains disinterested commentary and analysis (that is, the publisher is not encouraging readers to invest in securities in which the publisher has invested or intends to invest) and does not constitute promotional material for a security in which the publisher has an interest or for which the publisher is compensated. A website may not be considered “bona fide” when the publisher emails advice to its subscribers or answers questions in a chatroom. A website publication may not be of “general and regular” circulation where updates to the website are triggered by specific market activity or events affecting or having the ability to affect the securities industry. See SEC v. Park (a/k/a “Tokyo Joe”), 99 F. Supp. 2d 889 (N.D. Ill. 2000). 216.239.39.104 The retention of the Investment Advisers Act approach provides a better balance between First Amendment concerns and protection of investors from non-"bona fide" publicizing of investment advice. The exclusion in Section 102(15)(D) is intended to exclude publishers of Internet or electronic media, but only if the Internet or electronic media publication or website satisfies the "bona fide" and "publication of general, regular, and paid circulation" requirements. Cf. SEC v. Park, 99 F. Supp. 2d 889, 895-896 (N.D. Ill. 2000) (court declined to dismiss complaint against an Internet website when there were allegations that the website was not "bona fide" or of "general and regular circulation").
