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: rrufff who wrote (7463)	2/27/2005 5:01:02 PM
From: Jeffrey S. Mitchell	Respond to of 12465

It boils down to a prevention vs. cure problem. Yes, we need to work on both. On the prevention side, I'm advocating setting the bar higher since, in theory, that should prevent nuisance "I'm just doing this to shut you up" type lawsuits. On the cure side, while I agree there should be some way to free the courts from nuisance suits, your solution of "a national small claims or mandatory arbitration online panel", while good in theory, would likely be little used in practice. For example, when was the last time you saw someone sue someone else for $1999? No, they sue for millions. That's why on the cure side I like the idea of widespread adaption of a state and federal system that recognizes an anti-SLAPP statute. At least this way you can get back your legal fees quickly and easily compared to the usual way of having to countersue for vexatious litigation. And speaking of pro bono work, you are much more likely to get such a lawyer if there's a reasonable chance they can get the other side to pay their legal fees. - Jeff