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.

Microcap & Penny Stocks : Amazon Natural (AZNT) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Tom C who wrote (20824)	3/10/1999 7:35:00 AM
From: tonto	Respond to of 26163

Yes, case law has been established. What is important is to advise the violator that they are posting with the intent to maliciously damage the reputation of another. That has been established in some circumstances, and the poster knowingly continues to post the libel...this is when pay back starts. The RMIL thread during 1998 is an excellent example. The defendants' malicious, false and defamatory statements described above constitute libel per se as they are words tending to injure a person in his trade or business, many of which directly or indirectly charge Mr. Zwebner with criminal conduct, thus entitling plaintiff to a recovery without proof of special damages. A jury can appreciate, as search engines improve, how damaging it is for a business owner to be repeatedly called a criminal by a jerk. More and more, the net will become a tool for checking out individuals or businesses by firms.