 |  | 
charlie w
@covad.net
| Re: Was DSLR one of those 25? You guys aren't getting the point... there is no way that some things random anonymous people are saying on message boards is hurting their share price. People who control enough money to move share prices dont make moves based on the premonitions of "JonH5417" on yahoo. There is clearly something wrong with their company, and they're trying to cover it up with a lawsuit. Thats bad management if I ever saw it. I would short the company right now. | |
| 
Cheese
Premium
join:2003-10-26
Naples, FL
clubs: | Wow? It's a message board, FREEDOM OF SPEECH, and it seems this is not on their message board. Get a life, go about business as usual and don't WORRY about the FEW people who complain. | |
| | 
HardwareGeek
join:2003-11-15
Brooklyn, NY
| Re: Wow? Since when is there FREEDOM OF SPEECH on message boards? LOL there isn't. And this isn't the first time someones been sued for what they posted on a Message board. I know people who have been fired for posting on message boards as well.
--
Email/MSN: Michael at hardwaregeeks.comAIM: MikeR35292 | |
| | |
Cheese
Premium
join:2003-10-26
Naples, FL
clubs:
edit:
October 5th, @12:36PM
| Re: Wow? So now there is no freedom on speech of forums? IT'S A PUBLIC MESSAGE BOARD. This does not say if it was THEIR message boards, if NOT, then have fun trying to enforce something they have NO CONTROL over. If it was theirs, then that's a different story, but people still have a right to say what they want, the mods don't like it, delete it. But suing over something 25 people said, out of how many people that use their service? Give me a break. | |
| | | | ihaddsl
join:2001-12-05
/dev/hda0
 ·Comcast
| Re: Wow? freedom of speech means the goverment cannot restrict your speach. Message board owners can and do restrict speech in various ways via moderation.
Similarly, freedom of speech does not mean you have the right to say anything you want regardless of truth in any forum you choose.
Don't know what the particulars of this case are, and I don't know how this will end up | |
| | | | | john262
join:2003-09-26
Elko, NV
 ·Wireless Beehive
| Re: Wow? said by ihaddsl  :Similarly, freedom of speech does not mean you have the right to say anything you want regardless of truth in any forum you choose. You might be correct about that. I can't say just anything I want to at BBR for instance. If however I start up my own message board at my own domain then I really do believe that freedom of speech should allow me to say anything I want to on my own message board. I would however have the right to restrict what others say.
--
»musicfromthebluelight.com/ | |
| | | | | | PDXPLT
join:2003-12-04
Banks, OR
| Re: Wow? said by john262 :If however I start up my own message board at my own domain then I really do believe that freedom of speech should allow me to say anything I want to on my own message board. It does.There's no prior restraint. You can say anything you want. Including saying slanderous, untrue things about someone that'll earn you a big fat lawsuit.
'don't know the specifics here, and whether it was slanderous or not.. | |
| | | | | | 
nixen
Rockin' the Boxen
Premium
join:2002-10-04
Alexandria, VA
·Cox HSI
 ·Speakeasy
| said by john262 :said by ihaddsl :Similarly, freedom of speech does not mean you have the right to say anything you want regardless of truth in any forum you choose. You might be correct about that. I can't say just anything I want to at BBR for instance. If however I start up my own message board at my own domain then I really do believe that freedom of speech should allow me to say anything I want to on my own message board. I would however have the right to restrict what others say. You can say whatever you want, wherever you want. That said, if you're using something like a forum system, you're subject to the editorial actions of the forum owner. And, regardless of where you chose to exercise your freedom of speech, if said speech is damaging and intentionally untrue, inaccurate or misrepresentative, you can be held liable for the damage your free speech causes.
-tom
--
"Some people have morals, standards and ideals about quality, but I'm an American: I couldn't care less." --Tony Pierce (paraphrased) | |
| | | | | 
LegoPower77
Abecedarian
Premium
join:2002-08-03
Arlington, VA
| Yeah. Freedom of speech is a restriction on government. This is important to remember when these worthless entertainers complain about their freedom of speech being denied when the record company, or tv network censors them. The network can do whatever it wants. Private parties can restrict speech of others via a confidentiality agreement and such.
(Of course slander and libel are not allowed. But I wonder, they are illegal because it can affect what other people think of you, but do you own other people's thoughts? Just a interesting philosophical question.)
--
"It is a melancholy reflection that liberty should be equally exposed to danger whether the government have too much or too little power."—James Madison
It's right, it's free. | |
| | | |
HardwareGeek
join:2003-11-15
Brooklyn, NY
| If there was freedom of speech on message boards. Why are some post placed into a queue on this very message board for moderators to approve?
Freedom of speech also does not cover slander.
--
Email/MSN: Michael at hardwaregeeks.comAIM: MikeR35292 | |
| | | |
nonner
| the issue is NOT free speech, people entitled to say whatever they want and express their opinions, but in the USA there are laws against libel or defamation, and if you start using facts which aren't true then you may or may not get sued for libel, depending on how damaging the person/company finds it.
For example (not libel):
I think Burger King is better than McDonalds
McDonalds makes better hamburgers
McDonald's treats their customer complaints unfairly and rudely
Those are all examples of personal opinion and my own experience.
For example (libel):
McDonald's steals recipes from Burger King
Burger King uses dogs in their hamburger meat
You can't just state facts which aren't true.... now if you had pictures of McDonald's exec sneaking into Burger King headquarters and walking out with "recipe in hand" then it's not libel, (it's damaging but not libel), but if this picture was faked, then it would be libel
i'm not a lawyer, but that is a basic interpretation | |
| | | | | 
SRFireside
join:2001-01-19
Houston, TX
·RoadRunner Cable
| Re: Wow? said by nonner :
... but in the USA there are laws against libel or defamation, and if you start using facts which aren't true then you may or may not get sued for libel, depending on how damaging the person/company finds it. Doesn't there need to be evidence of damage before the lawsuits fly? I mean these guys can't possibly think they will win a lawsuit unless they can show the messages are a direct result of their stock being devalued, opportunities lost due to the rumors spread, and so on. Also they have to be prepared to counter any alternate claims as to why said stock/business losses happened. Does anybody know if any of this happened? | |
| | | | | | 
Octopussy2
Premium
join:2003-03-30
Batavia, IL
| Re: Wow? Excellent point! How they think they are going to prove their stock went down in value directly due to those postings is going to be very interesting.
--
It's muni-licious! »www.tricitybroadband.com | |
| | 
Jazzy1120
Premium
join:2003-07-26
..
·AT&T Southwest
| Re: Wow?/Cheese69 It's a message board, FREEDOM OF SPEECH, and it seems this is not on their message board. Get a life, go about business as usual and don't WORRY about the FEW people who complain.
when you join any message board you give up your "'freedom of speech",by agreeing with the boards policy,(here or anywhere) you agree to act in accordance with their rules & not your freedom to say,harm,hurt,anyone you want,Jazzy" | |
| | Kearnstd
Elf Wizard
join:2002-01-22
Mullica Hill, NJ
| Re: Wow? Messageboards are under Freedom of Speech though, unless the owner doesnt approve of the content. but both the owner and poster are protected as long as the post doesnt violate other laws(such as anti-child porn laws, or insider trading as defined by the SEC).
--
[65 Arcanist]Filan(High Elf) Zone: Broadband Reports | |
| | |
Cheese
Premium
join:2003-10-26
Naples, FL
clubs: | Re: Wow? Seems people think that it's not under freedom of speech, I digress as it's a public forum, place for people to say things on their mind. | |
| 
lazsheriff
Laz
join:2005-01-03
Fort Lauderdale, FL
edit:
October 5th, @12:30PM
| this is... This is completely stupid.
I should go to message boards and ramble about how I think Burger King is better than Mcdonalds. Better yet, I'm going to get a couple of friends to join me in my "campaign." Then we will wait to get sued by Mcdonalds because of our deliberate misinformation.
It's all free speech it's not like these guys are publishing their stuff.
If that's the case we would all be sued here by (ISP NAME HERE).
--
1.33ghz G4 14" ibook -1.25 GB ram
2ghz P4 dual boot XP and Ubuntu -1.5 GB ram | |
| | ackman
join:2000-10-04
Acworth, GA
·AT&T Southeast
| Re: this is... It may be a little deeper than you're giving it credit for. If, for instance, you posted fraudulent messages that you were finding cockroach legs in the french fries at a particular restaurant, that isn't covered by "free speech". Content that results in damages to another party can be subject of legal action, and based on the merits, could result in a judgment against the author. If, on the other hand, the author had indisputable proof of cockroach legs in the french fries, then the author would prevail in such a lawsuit. | |
| | |
lazsheriff
Laz
join:2005-01-03
Fort Lauderdale, FL
| Re: this is... said by ackman :It may be a little deeper than you're giving it credit for. If, for instance, you posted fraudulent messages that you were finding cockroach legs in the french fries at a particular restaurant, that isn't covered by "free speech". Content that results in damages to another party can be subject of legal action, and based on the merits, could result in a judgment against the author. If, on the other hand, the author had indisputable proof of cockroach legs in the french fries, then the author would prevail in such a lawsuit. Good point but the way I'm looking at it, it's not like a news story where something get's published that is harmful without credible sources. I'm a journalism major and we always have to credit our sources in our articles and make sure we cover our asses incase someone tries to come back and sue us. Then we have our opinion articles were quite frankly anything flies because it's simply an opinion. Nothing can be proven or misproven. For example if I said I found roach legs in the deep fryer at Mcdonalds in an opinion article, there is nothing that can prove its true but then again there is nothing that can prove its false. A message board for the most part is equivalent to any conversation you'd have with a couple of people on the street where everyone is entitled to their opinion.
--
1.33ghz G4 14" ibook -1.25 GB ram
2ghz P4 dual boot XP and Ubuntu -1.5 GB ram | |
| | | | radarman
join:2005-06-01
Odenton, MD
| Re: this is... I was also in journalism, and at least then, the crux was whether you claimed your statement was truth or opinion.
For example, if you say that you (or a source) found a cockroach in a MacDonald's fryer, then you are saying that your claim is a statement of fact. There was, according to you, a roach at the specified location at a specified point in time. This claim would require proof, or be liable for libel.
On the other hand, if you say that you believe that there are roaches in the MacDonald's fryers, then this is generally not actionable so long as you make it clear that this is your personal opinion or belief.
Unfortunately, the line is kind of blurry on this - and often comes down to grammar, and trying to discern intent. If the plaintiff can reasonably argue that the "belief" was in fact a claim - then the onus is on the defendant to prove the claim was true.
To a degree, it also depends on the specificity of the claim or opinion. Saying that you believe (generally) that MacDonald's doesn't do enough to prevent roaches from doing back flips into the fryers is an opinion, or belief. Saying that roaches ARE doing back flips into the fryers is a statement of fact. Both would probably land you in a courtroom - but your chances of winning are substantially different. | |
| | | 
N10Cities
SILENCE I Keel You
join:2002-05-07
Podunk, AR
clubs:
·World Lynx
·Cox HSI
| said by ackman :It may be a little deeper than you're giving it credit for. If, for instance, you posted fraudulent messages that you were finding cockroach legs in the french fries at a particular restaurant, that isn't covered by "free speech". Content that results in damages to another party can be subject of legal action, and based on the merits, could result in a judgment against the author. If, on the other hand, the author had indisputable proof of cockroach legs in the french fries, then the author would prevail in such a lawsuit. From what I gather, the issue at hand is mis-information about the company. The ISP claims that these persons involved are attempting to affect the stock price by spreading mis-information (financial results, etc) which would cause the company's stock to go down, which would profit these people who are apparently short-selling the stock.
It's one thing to say "So and so company sucks!", but another when you say "I heard that So and So company is going under and can't pay its' bills". Legal area is a bit more iffy on that issue... | |
| 
kalphearion
In nomine Patri
Premium
join:2003-11-08
Denver, CO
clubs:
edit:
October 5th, @12:33PM
| Haha We will see how far this goes.
Not far IMO.
It is all free speech, look at bestbuysux.org, they post tons of crap about the company, no lawsuits, because THEY CAN'T | |
| | 
ssevern
join:2000-11-09
Londonderry, NH | Re: Haha But if people post LIES about Best Buy then Best Buy would have a case against them... | |
| |
nonner
| check out the disclaimer on the website...
"Content of the Communication will be the liability of the sender, as will any consequences of willfully, purposely providing false, misleading, or fraudulent information. The site operator merely provides the forum for which others may post their opinions, experiences, etc. This includes all forms of communications, such as but not limited to -- E-mail, Phone, Answering Machine Messages, Beeper Messages, regular mail, chat, and any other form of communication."
it's not free speech if you are "...willfully, purposely providing false, misleading, or fraudulent information." | |
| 
MacGyver
In Flanders Fields
Premium,ExMod 2003-05
join:2001-10-14
Orleans, ON | Watch Out Anyone that posts in this thread will be added to the lawsuit?
I guess I'll find out now. | |
| 
shrtckt1
Fried Rice
Premium
join:2005-05-18
Athens, GA | Where is this going? They don't want to see users trading files freely, now they don't want us talking freely. What is next? The right to breathe? Why don't they wake up & learn that they will never control the free internet. | |
| 
JPuppy
Java Heathen
Premium
join:2002-11-24
Glassboro, NJ
clubs:
edit:
October 5th, @12:41PM
| Blah First off, posting an article on BBR based off nothing more than a company press release is pretty lame.
And second: All the cries above regarding "OMG FREE SPEEACH!!1!!!11" don't apply if the defendants are guilty of purposely posting false and misleading information about a person or company. (See: libel).
Of course, since this entire thread is based off of nothing more than a press release, we really don't know now, do we?
--
BBR Alliance Militia: Vonhammer | |
|
CrazyPeople
@turner.com
| Crazy Lawsuits CNN is in litigation involving a poster who called himself Wolfblizzer and posted defamatory remarks about a private citizen. Never mind that the poster certainly wasn't Wolf Blitzer or that CNN has no relation in anyway to the poster or website. CNN is being sued anyway. It won't amount to anything, but the fact that these lawsuits get permission to proceed show you that judges know nothing about the internet. | |
| 
GoodyearMark
Premium
join:2001-05-02
Goodyear, AZ | hmm.. "deliberate misinformation campaigns"
So this is only ok when it comes from a corporate entity I guess. | |
| |
lazsheriff
Laz
join:2005-01-03
Fort Lauderdale, FL
edit:
October 5th, @01:06PM
| Re: hmm.. It's a much larger scale when its a corporate entity.
Imagine your neighbor calling you a prick.
Now imagine CNN calling you a prick.
--
1.33ghz G4 14" ibook -1.25 GB ram
2ghz P4 dual boot XP and Ubuntu -1.5 GB ram | |
| | | 
uther
join:2001-12-04
Saint Peters, MO
| Re: hmm.. Next on CNN - Front Page Story:
Uther is a Prick.
(Revert to shot of Uther standing in front of the camera raising his hands in victory.)
Oh yes, folks.. If only CNN could make it happen! 
Pointless post completed. | |
| | | | 
PBX Tech
Theory of a Deadman on XM 48 Squizz
Premium
join:2000-09-20
Norwich, CT | Re: hmm.. in-depth reporting took place for that one. | |
| | | | |
chaser7016
@68.34.x.x | Re: hmm.. All you have to do is find an open wi fi connection and post away. They'll find the IP belongs to some grandma or someone who doesnt speak english possibly. If those people were smart that's what they should've been doing. | |
| | | radarman
join:2005-06-01
Odenton, MD
| Legally, the statement is an opinion. No reasonable person would suggest that either the neighbor, or CNN, would actually be claiming the person in question is a "prick" (penis).
Besides, it would have to be filed as slander, not libel (unless it made it into a transcript).
It is perfectly legal to call anyone anything, as long as it is clear that it is your opinion, and not a statement of fact.
There is a gray area, though. Calling someone a "prick" doesn't qualify, since that is clearly an opinion. Calling someone a "Nazi" might be actionable - it depends on whether your other statements indicate you are claiming they are "a member of the Nazi party", or merely acting in a fascist manner. Calling someone a criminal, however, is easily actionable - unless you can prove they committed a crime. | |
| | |
Octopussy2
Premium
join:2003-03-30
Batavia, IL
edit:
October 6th, @11:51AM
| Imagine Comcast calling you "BITCH DOG".....sorry, couldn't resist!
It is a much bigger deal when a corp. calls you a derrogatory name. It could land you on the Today Show.
--
It's muni-licious! »www.tricitybroadband.com | |
| 
G_Poobah
join:2004-01-17
Schenectady, NY
| Corporations using gestapo tactics again #1: If anyone read the actual article, it says the following: The fraudulent and misleading information distributed by these defendants has been posted on widely visited financial Internet message boards including Yahoo! Finance, Raging Bull and others. The information has included, but is not limited to, fraudulent statements about the financial condition and business activities of the company, erroneous information about the company's products, partners and customers, and personal attacks against the company's management, board of directors and employees.
and
Our goal is to do everything we can to put a stop to these illegal activities and seek maximum damages for the benefit of Eagle and its shareholders."
Note: They did NOT use the word libelous statements, because their lawyers are too smart for that. As soon as they start shouting libel, then they've put all the beans on the table, and have to PROVE it. Instead, they are throwing out meaningless threats to try and justify why their stock has been worthless for the last 2 years. This is no different than the RIAA throwing out the lawyers at anything that moves.
#2: If they are doing it to 'protect their stock', then they are 100% in the wrong. It is NOT THEIR JOB, and they are NOT QUALIFIED to pursue it. The only one qualified to pursue these so called fraudulent posters is the SEC. Eagle knows they have zero legal ground to stand on, so in their minds, they are going to try and crush the posters by outspending them. If this were being done in a LEGAL manner, then the SEC would be doing the investigation, not Eagle.
#3: Once again proving that the laws don't apply to the corporations. They are unhappy with what they see people posting about them. Their lawyers won't let them use the word 'libel', because then they'd need to prove it to a judge before they could get a subpoena to get the posters names. Instead, they are doing the 'fake accusations' to try and get the public on their side, and throwing the lawyers at the court, with ZERO PROOF of libel, hoping to get the info and scare anyone who engages in free speech.
If the corporations want to use lawyers as a big hammer to suppress free speech, I for one, hope they get smacked down by a good judge, and their company, the personal estates of all the executives seized and distributed, the stockholders shorn of any value (which has already happened), and the funds used to improve their sector. It's time to teach these corporations a lesson, throw the execs in jail for meaningless lawsuits, and destroy all shareholder value. That's the only thing that will stop shareholders from investing in these scam companies.
--
Grand Poobah | |
| achuchma
join:2001-04-11
Tampa, FL
|  Did any of you go to school?!
quote:
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
So, where in here are you given right to freedom of speech on message boards, etc...
It amazes me how many people DO NOT understand what the First Amendment is about... 
The First Amendment is in place to protect us from government implied restrictions on speech, religion, protest, etc...
When you slander a private company, you are no longer protected under the First Amendment.
--
Bring back chicken and potato chips - Vote Perot! | |
| |
Crazy People
@turner.com
thumbs down from:
palmer_j_r
| Re: Did any of you go to school?! The first amendment protects your right to say whatever you want, but it does not shield you from the consequences. Libel and Slander are civil not criminal law. If you want to publish a work that portrays a private citizen as a murderer nobody is going to stop you, but that citizen then has the right to sue the pants off you in civil court to recover damages to their reputation. | |
| | | achuchma
join:2001-04-11
Tampa, FL
| Re: Did any of you go to school?! said by Crazy People :
The first amendment protects your right to say whatever you want, but it does not shield you from the consequences. Libel and Slander are civil not criminal law. If you want to publish a work that portrays a private citizen as a murderer nobody is going to stop you, but that citizen then has the right to sue the pants off you in civil court to recover damages to their reputation. Which is not protected under freedom of speech. If you were to be arrested for protesting the White House about the war in Iraq, that would be a violation of the 1st Amendment.
If the government imprisoned you because you were Catholic, that would be a violation of the 1st Amendment.
If you posted incorrect information regarding a company/person stating it as fact, you are not protected under the 1st Amendment. You can be liable for your actions.
See the difference?
--
Bring back chicken and potato chips - Vote Perot! | |
| 
GlenQuagmire
Giggidy Giggidy Giggidy Goo
Premium
join:2004-02-16
Grand Rapids, MI |  WTF
| |
| 
spatula_city
join:2001-05-09
Fullerton, CA
clubs:
| Ironic What is ironic about this is that Eagle Broadband may now recieve more damaging press by filing this lawsuit compared to the so-called negative statements from the 25 message board posters.
Free Speech Rules!
--
www.spatula-city.com | |
| | 
macbloghaus
Im from Cuba MANG
Premium
join:2004-07-08
Massena, NY
| Re: Ironic Well Eagle BroadBAnd Suck and I heard that they was G%$.
SO I GUESS I WILL BE SUE TOO.HERE THE LINK TO THERE STOCKS PRICES
»moneycentral.msn.com/detail/stoc···l=US:EAG
.Seem like they tend to make money of this story.
P.s I have no idea what Eaglebroadband is and have relations too them at all | |
| Microsoft 98
join:2003-01-22
Micmac, NS
| It's freedom on speech It's freedom on speech to what ever there talking about on there and any message board site.
All they could have done is block ip user(s) or if that don't do a trick block there isp ip range.
There is things they could have done but sue john doe so the story says. Could be they know who could be doing this but went out saying there is this amount of john does posting.
As of right now that's just too lame or stupid sue someone just for posting what they feel like. Myself run into a few message board sites, I got warnings because of something I said and someone reply to what I said and ................ Go figure you get the hint. I did not like what he said and he never like what I said.
I even sometimes B--ch about how come I can't close some of my old pogo name accounts, But does not mean you can't I should sue Easports company because a user can't cancel there account(s)
Everyone better watch there backs huh, Better make sure you type in right email address or you might get sue for mailing wrong person, Better make sure your pc is spyware free 24/7 and not effected with a packet log, Pin wrong ip address you might get sue, You better dial the right phone number or you may get sue LMAO COME ONNNNNNNNNN
--
http ://www.freewebs.com/trafficslamming | |
|
mindgarde
@cgocable.net | serious ppl aren't they I guess thats one way to deal with customer complaints ... lol
I won't be signing up. | |
| 
ssj4android
Redefining Reality
join:2002-04-14
Wyoming, MI | So, what exactly did these guys say? I'd like to know what they said and how they lied exactly. | |
| | | |
|
|
Eagle Broadband Sues Message Board Users
