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.

SI - Site Forums : Silicon Investor - Welcome New SI Members! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Garfield who wrote (1677)	6/22/1998 8:38:00 PM
From: Jeffrey S. Mitchell	Respond to of 32873

Garfield, that post is required reading by all. Great find! - Jeff P.S. Here I'm searching the internet and the answer is right here on SI!

To: Garfield who wrote (1677)	6/22/1998 10:30:00 PM
From: WTMHouston	Respond to of 32873

FWIW, I agree completely with the defamation article. The one issue that it did not discuss is the standard to be applied. In my view, this is the area where the internet may provide some interesting differences. Whether one can successfully sue or be sued for defamation in this country often depends on whether the target of the allegedly defamatory material is a public figure. To make a long and complicated story short -- and oversimplifying it -- a public figure can only prevail in a defamation action if he can prove malice in the publication of the defamatory material. Malice basically means that it was intentional or with reckless disregard for the truth. (reckless disregard is being aware of the risk that it may be false and not consciously ignoring that risk by, among other things, not doing anything substantial to verify its truth or falsity). Malice is hard to prove. While I have little doubt that most public companies and their CEO's are public figures with respect to comment about them and their companies, which will make it very hard for them to successfully sue most people, the more interesting question is whether a poster on a message board may be a limited public figure and subject to being successfully sued by another poster. My gut guess, and that is all it is, is that anyone that posts on a public forum like this becomes a limited public figure within the general scope of what they posted. Thus, to the extent that I post a message about company A, I could only sue someone who defamed me with respect to that general subject if I could prove that they did so intentionally or with reckless disregard for the truth. On the other hand, if I posted something about company A, and someone replied with a post that alleged that I was thief and a fraud 5 years ago in an unrelated circumstance (and no, being an attorney does not per se make that true) then all I would have to prove is that is was false and damaging to my reputation (even though some would think it never could be given my occupation): not that they published it knowing of or with reckless disregard for its falsity. The other area that may be important in the internet message board context is whether a statement is one of fact or opinion. One thing that many people would do well to remember is that a statement of fact does not become opinion simply because it is prefaced by "In my opinion." In its simplest form, and as most applicable here, an opinion is a subjective evaluation of fact. Thus, a statement that "In my opinion, Joe Blow CEO is a fraud and a thief" is probably a statement of fact not opinion. On the other hand, the statement that "Joe Blow CEO's inconsistent statements lead me to believe that XYZ corps books are being cooked" or "I think that Joe Blow appears dishonest because of his inconsistent statements" are probably statements of opinion. Generally, only statements of fact and not opinion are actionable. If you want to express an opinion based on facts, have at it. If you want to express opinion as fact, you had better be able to back it up or you may have crossed the proverbial line. This ended up a lot longer than I planned. (It is an occupational hazard). I think I will end it with the same opinion as the other one: this is not legal advise and should not be taken as such by anyone. This only provides general educational information. You must never rely upon the advice given here. Your individual situation may not fit the generalizations discussed. Only your attorney can evaluate your individual situation and give you advice. Troy