To: Ilaine who wrote (110 ) 12/14/1998 3:16:00 PM From: Janice Shell Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 242
SI is part of the marketplace of ideas, and robust, even heated, debate, is part of our heritage. I would draw the line at obscenity, personal slurs on the other's character, and outright fraud, that's about it. I agree. As I've said before, I wouldn't want to see the threat of legal action used to stifle debate or intimidate those who ask uncomfortable questions. And SI is, as you've said, an informal place, where jokes and speculation are, and should be, tolerated. Certainly I don't believe that "ridicule" should be considered actionable. Fun's fun. Ironically, one of the defendants threatened online to bring suit against Bill Ulrich for his "Amazon Natural Blunders" parody (Bill, what's the URL, I've lost it?). On the other hand we have this:On October 24, 1998 defendant Doe I a/k/a "Spider Valdez" falsely informed the Internet world that the plaintiff was in trouble with the SEC and the FBI in connection with their "deeds" concerning DCI stock: "i look at [DCI] squeeze and deeds of Zwebners. sec and fbi have matters in hand." That seems to me to be an actionable statement. Spidey has no way at all of knowing what the SEC and FBI are up to, but he's pretending he does. Yes: everybody gets something wrong now and then. Carelessly cites an unreliable source, misunderstands a document. That's forgivable; I think the possibilities for human error are understood by most who read these threads. But (if you can stand it) go read AZNT: Spidey and Rico, especially Spidey (bmart in his last incarnation) have spent several months systematically inventing "information" that serves their "cause". And that is wrong.