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.

Strategies & Market Trends : The DD Maven -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: shortsinthesand who wrote (692)	8/23/2009 8:58:48 AM
From: rrufff	1 Recommendation Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 736

sands - if you really want an answer, start with the cases and the commentary on state laws. These are not laws that prevent opinions, so those who bash or post positively about a stock should be able to continue their activities, so long as the totality of their activities does not reasonably put others in fear or expose them to shame. For example, people who go around and accuse others of crimes, who accuse others in defamatory fashion, those who publish google pictures of homes, those who urge others to go find someone, those who incite gangs of posters to attack other posters with claims that they are deviants, racially or ethnically inferior, those who encourage civil rights attacks, and these are just examples, would have more to fear. These types of attacks are thought by many Constitutional scholars as not protected speech, particularly when we are not talking about public figures, such as our politicians and Hollywood celebrities. It's an interesting area of changing jurisprudence and there is a lot of commentary out there. Legislative committees have published commentary. There have been a couple of cases in the news including the one that I cited a few posts back with respect to the model who was taunted online. When YOU were attacked by the Beebe associates, this is the type of precedent that could have helped YOU. Others online who have been victimized with disclosure of personal information in a way that puts them in fear, who have been subjected to racial or ethnic targeting, those who have been accused of violating laws or securities regulations by merely posting opinions or DD and who are followed from board to board with name-calling that is not just voicing a difference in opinion, could also be helped as this area of jurisprudence is expanded. Think of it, perhaps, as a big TOU that makes common sense. For example, it will always be OK to say, "I disagree with your opinion. This company is a total scam. It's a dilution pig. It's going to 0. You will probably lose your entire investment. It's pretty stupid to invest in this company. Why are you investing in this scam?" However, attack or bullying posting, particularly in tandem with others, may be affected, for example, something like what follows: "You must be working for the company. Why would you post something good if you weren't getting free shares? You must be violating securities laws. You are a securities promoter as that term is used in securities law. How much were you paid to defend this scam? You were a moderator of a board and you're going to jail. You posted positively while this stock was being pumped and the SEC is investigating you." Posters may have to be careful when they are attacking others with old posts and out-of-context matter that incites others to attack and put fear or shame in targets. Of course, my answer to your question here is speculation on my part. As I suggested, this is an area that is new. Jurisprudence evolves slowly. However, given the cases where people are put in fear or private issues have been exposed to areas beyond immediate environment, legislators and judges are looking differently at cyber attacks. Defenses may not be the same as with defamation. For example, someone robs a store as a young man. Years later, he posts on a stock message board. Someone finds out that he is a convicted felon and posts his personal information and criminal history all over the internet. That person has not been defamed, because the posts are truthful. However, that person might be protected under versions of cyber-bullying laws that have been proposed. Most commentators suggest a standard of reasonable expectations. That is, the person who robbed a store does not expect to be cyber bullied because he posted an opinion on a stock board. It's a very interesting area of discussion and something that all who post should study as it evolves. Hope that helps, and best wishes for continued good trading!