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 : Caussa Capital (formerly Antares) T.CAU -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Ray Fidler who wrote (4111)	8/7/1998 8:17:00 PM
From: Mr Metals	Respond to of 4718

In time, and hopefully soon, everybody will see what good the company's management team has done for the shareholders. I doubt that. Mr Metals

To: Ray Fidler who wrote (4111)	8/7/1998 8:23:00 PM
From: Sawdusty	Respond to of 4718

<<In time, and hopefully soon, everybody will see what good the company's management team has done for the shareholders. Then everybody will forget this nasty incident about john.>> Perhaps their total efforts and money should be directed towards that effort, rather than reading SI and hiring lawyers to silence frustrated shareholders. Maybe, just maybe, it could happen quicker.

To: Ray Fidler who wrote (4111)	8/8/1998 12:28:00 AM
From: Ally	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 4718

Ray, Gabe, Wayne... it is not about John... it is about our membership on SI >>I see many new names posting on this thread for the first time, and it appears these people don't know the real truth about Antares' lawsuit against john. I suggest to these people that they go back and read some of the old posts. << The reason why new names are posting on this thread is because many SI members are concern when a publicly listed company sue for libel over chat on the threads. And yes, I have gone back to read all of John's posts on Antares before I posted my previous message. Before continuing, I must first apologize to you, Gabe, and Wayne. Obviously my previous message wasn't made as clear as it should be. The three of you seem to think that I'm condoning the nature of John's posts. I do not.... I wish he had been more careful in articulating his views. I know too that the civil law of slander applies also to chat groups, and that anyone can take legal action against those that may have falsely smeared one's reputation. (BTW, the three of you have apparently already found John guilty of libel. I think you should wait and see how John responds to the notice first before pronouncing him guilty.) What I was trying to say in my previous post is that the nature of John's postings is a secondary issue. The bigger and more important issue here is whether a publicly listed company should be quick to sue over what was said by a shareholder in a chat group. SI members like me feel that this is not an approriate action for a publicly listed company to take because of the following reasons: 1) There are various other ways of resolving the problem first without automatically using the ultimate weapon. For example, one of the basics tenets in Management 101 is to open up a dialogue with your harshest critic. You'll be pleasantly surprised how quickly the critic tones down when he is heard. He may even turn around to be your ally. John started his angst toward the company from messages starting in early July. Has the company made any attempts to communicate to him in the meantime to resolve the problem prior to displaying the notice of libel on this thread? If the company had contacted John, had clarified what's troubling John, and had tried to address the issues he put forward, all to no avail, then a law suit could be the only resort. A corporation resorting to a libel law suit (funded by shareholders) against an individual is liken to an outright kill. Even when you are defending yourself against a physical attack, the criminal law calls for using only "reasonable force"sufficient to protect yourself. 2) A libel law suit applied to remarks made in a stock chat group invariably chills the freedom to discuss freely. It invariably infringes on the basic right of free speech. As I observed in my previous post... already a few posters have left the thread in fear of unknowingly uttering libelous statements against an apparently trigger quick company. Their rights to free speech on this thread have essentially been stripped! If we were to err, then we should err toward maintaining this fundamental right of people living in a free country. 3) The nature of internet threads is one where people of various background, knowledge, training, culture, chat about the merits of investing or shorting a company's stock. Invariably you can find potentially libel statements made toward each other, or toward the company. No thread is completely void of potentially libelous statements. A thin skin company can easily find many opportunities to threaten their critics with libel warnings. When SI members are quick to condone a company's action of libel, they are basically shooting their own feet. In the long run, they will essentially be closing down the threads because people are afraid to express critical viewpoints, or whistle blow, lest they are sued. Of course, the companies will love this. But will an atmosphere of "praises only" be good for your investment decisions? Libel action against a poster in an internet chat group is an emerging practice started by PHV, and now ANZ (unfortunately both Canadian companies). If we view dearly the freedom of expression on SI threads, members will demand that companies be more thick skin, and that they try using other means of handling their harshest critics besides using the ultimate weapon.