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.

Gold/Mining/Energy : Golden Eagle Int. (MYNG) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Mike P. who wrote (9383)	7/11/1998 1:06:00 PM
From: Traveling Man	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 34075

Poet, This is a good point. Generally, I have seen in the states that courts allow more leeway for "libelous" type speech when it is directed toward "public" people or entities. It is always a difficult question to resolve. I am not familiar with the Canadian jurisprudence system at all, have assumed ours were quite similar. IMO, this order, though understandable from the company viewpoint based on physical threats,is way overreaching in a western country. The judgement to make available messages that there is no reason to believe even to pertain to that company seem way off base. It is wrong to falsely accuse someone of a crime. I think the appropriate way to handle this is for the company to charge an individual and use the publicly available "libelous" statements that he/she published as evidence. On the other hand, my preference is to err on the side of free speech and tolerate a bunch of crap as a result. The end result,if this policy were enforced, would be silly disclaimers and a lack of honesty. I always want to know what someone thinks honestly and we will lose this, if folks think they can be hauled into court for something they said on a chat line,even if it's wrong. Let's assume for sake of discussion that someone knew something negative about an officer's past or present conduct. Might that person NOT bring it forward, due to fear of legal repercussions, even though it may be true,but unproven in court,therefore libelous? Just thoughts to consider.

To: Mike P. who wrote (9383)	7/11/1998 3:22:00 PM
From: Eugene Freedman	Respond to of 34075

<right of free speech> It is troubling how few people understand the US Constitution and it's Amendments. The 1st Amendment states that Congress shall make no law limiting the right of free speech. It does not allow free speech, just limits Congress' ability to make laws concerning speech. The 16th Amendment limits the States from making laws limiting speech. Private groups, companies, or people can limit speech. You cannot say whatever you want no matter where you are. Congress and the States do have the ability to limit speech in certain circumstances. Those include public safety, and to protect people's reputations. You cannot yell "fire" in a crowded theatre despite the "right of free speech" because it endangers the public. This is a crime. Defamation laws protect people's reputations (commonly referred to as libel and slander laws) but they are not criminal laws. They civil laws and therefore are neither felonies nor misdemeanors. They are torts which depending on area can result in retraction, compensatory, and punative damages. The only thing that was said which is true about this subject is that public personalities have a higher burden to prove defamation. They must prove that either the bad actor was malicious or should have known that the material was incorrect and knew that the statement would cause harm. I have been lurking since I purchased shares in MINE over a year ago. I have seen many things posted both positive or negative about the company, none of which I could correct or dispute. However, due to the misinformation being posted on this subject I thought it would be good to educate the readers of this thread. I hope I have helped in the area in which I do have expertise, but I will not attempt to spout on about the stock, mining, or MM, none of which I know anything about. The regular posters of this group have been very educational to me, and in this one limited area I hope I have educated them. Eugene Freedman