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.

Microcap & Penny Stocks : Rocky Mountain Int'l (OTC:RMIL former OTC:OVIS) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: FTJoe who wrote (35589)	1/11/1998 11:45:00 AM
From: TideGlider	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 55532

FTJoe: I am uncertain how much influence an employer in any sector can influence the private speech of the empoyee. I have seen code posted by some inferring that Brokers may not "slam stocks". However, there are two things to consider. One is that those that believe the construct of the statutes preclude MK from posting negative comments due to his status as a broker would have to be operating under the same definitions as the regulatory agencies. Another would be as are often found exceptions to rules that are found later in the same statutory chapters. Are there any? I don't know as I am not intimately familiar with SEC administrative and criminal statutes. For definitions, nearly all statutory writing contain a listing of the "definitions" to be assigned all critical words and phrases found in the specific statute. Those definitions are the actual meanings of the words and phrases that were assigned by the writers of the law of regulation. Does anyone have a good sight for SEC related statutes? I would very much like to research them. Thank-you TG