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 : Bill Wexler's Profits of DOOM -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Peter V who wrote (2010)	8/19/1998 12:31:00 AM
From: Ken Salaets	Respond to of 4634

Re which amendment Barbara meant to refer to, I also assumed as much, but when she repeated the error, I thought that she was trying to make a different point and hence was interested in her train of thought. Re libel, etc., as I said in an earlier post, sometimes the mere act of litigating extracts such a high price that even if a case is dismissed via summary judgement or whatever, it still achieves the desired end. Accordingly, why would someone voluntarily and repeatedly conduct themselves in a manner that attracts this sort of "praise?"

To: Peter V who wrote (2010)	8/19/1998 10:05:00 AM
From: Mama Bear	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 4634

Peter, I did mean freedom of the press. What we do here is publishing. Unless you don't use your SI spell check, the button you push to post is "publish message". Web pages are published. I suppose it's not a big difference under the Constitution, but I do think it's accurate. Barb

To: Peter V who wrote (2010)	8/19/1998 7:23:00 PM
From: Kimberly Lee	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 4634

<<The First Amendment generally covers libel and slander, but I don't have any specific case law to cite that covers internet posting.>> First of all, the First Amendment has absolutely nothing to do with litigations between private parties, such as in Wexler vs Tava. This amendment is generally a catch-all directive against GOVERNMENT regulation of speech, press, expressions, religious beliefs and so forth. Most laymen don't seem to understand its very basic foundations and meanings, and I repeat, it has ABSOULTELY NOTHING to do with squabbles between private parties. {{<<freedom of the press? Say what?! >> Perhaps my esteemed friend Ms. Payne (related to Thomas, no doubt) meant to say "freedom of speech"}} Barbara is correct; both freedom of speech and freedom of the press are protected by the First Amendment against unreasonable government regulation. Thomas Jefferson stated in 1798: "[The First Amendment] thereby guard[s] in the same sentence, and under the same words, the freedom of religion, of speech, and of the press; insomuch, that whatever violates either, throws down the sanctuary which covers the others, and that libels, falsehood, and defamation, equally with heresy and false religion, are withheld from the cognizance of federal tribunals." In other words, defenders of democracy, which embraces the First Amendment, should be a force that thoughtfully and eloquently, and when necessary, vengefully fights any serious attempts to limit or control, in any way, the right of man or woman to think, to see, to read, to say, to sing, to print, to sculpt, to film, to paint, or to embody their beliefs or ideas graphically or symbolically. Kimberly