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: Kimberly Lee who wrote (2052)	8/19/1998 11:28:00 PM
From: Peter V	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 4634

Kimberly, uh, WOW! I'm speechless <G>. Thanks for the extremely through explanation. I think all of us owe you thanks for enlightening us as to the intricate aspects of this area of the law. Your first paragraph is what I was trying to convey, that as a broad principle, the First Amendment is the foundation for the analysis, and as always, a balancing test is used. Thanks again. I may just bookmark your post.

To: Kimberly Lee who wrote (2052)	8/21/1998 10:45:00 PM
From: ztect	Respond to of 4634

Kimberly: Was reading through your arguments and have to say I was impressed by your erudition. I would just add that in a defamation case even if libel occurs and can be proven, the one who has been defamed also has to demonstrate how such defamation has either effected current and future earnings. This demonstration is the basis for damages being awarded. It is quite possible in this type of case, that libel can occur but no damages be awarded because no direct causation can be established between the libelous action and a company or individual's lost earnings. Now if there were a case of Tava against Wexler, Tava may make a case against Wexler and prove that he made false claims. (Let me add that the line between what constitutes an opinion and what constitute slander is a thin one). They have to also demonstrate his slanders cost them business. This connection has no real or immediate bearing on the share price. Will potential business partners and clients utilize Tava's services based upon the share price or the strength of the company? Do clients make there decisions based on stock chat boards? However, an action brought by share holders against Wexler may have more legitimacy if they can prove his actions have caused them to incur losses. But shareholders would also have to make a connection between Wexler's words and the stock's price. They would have to prove that his words and not the actions (like insider selling)or under performance of the company cause the share price drop. IMO such a action would be quite a stretch. Anyway, just my two cents. ztect