Your email is from a domain called hbo3.com. If HBO ever decided to sue for that domain name they would probably win. Not because they have any rights to it but because they have lawyers and fear on their side. Same with speech. It doesn't matter if the speech is open and clear. A lawyer can slap an injunction on you and scare you into silence faster than your brain can think 1st amendment. I've seen it done by paramount, I know people at paramount who are part of it. Doesn't make it right or legal. Just do-able.
> It's not that the 1st Amendment is a joke to them -- it's that they > understand that your right to speak your mind is not absolute. Never has > been. > > You have a right to speak your mind so long as it doesn't substantially > interfere with the rights of other people. > > You can't, in the famous example, yell "fire" in a crowded movie theater. > This is not a protected right under the Constitution. Other people have a > right to life and property, all of which you are potentially taking from > others by such a bogus act (life because somebody could be killed in the > stampede -- a foreseeable consequence of the action) and property because > they've paid good money to see the show and now may miss it or part of it). > > At the same token, companies have rights to protect trade secrets. It's a > lawyers job to protect those secrets. > > Because not all issues of competing rights are clear cut, we have lawsuits > and courts and lawyers and such. They're there for the gray areas. If all > issues were black and white, we wouldn't need them. > > The issues raised previously fall into some gray areas that can only be > resolved through mature reasoning (some sort of agreement between the > parties) or through a court case. > > H. > > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Michael Dinowitz [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Thursday, January 03, 2002 8:39 AM > To: CF-Community > Subject: RE: I was wrong > > > Any non-publicly released information about a company by people inside the > company or people in certain relationships to people in the company that is > used to change the stock price can fall under insider trading. On the other > hand, information that is overheard can be considered non-insider trading > in many situations. > If you heard some information about an Apple product and posted it up to a > website then you are can be looked at in that category. Remember that > lawyers will use a lot to get their way. 1st amendment is a joke to them. I > saw an article about a new Apple handheld today and the site was down > almost immediately. > > At 11:38 AM 1/3/02, you wrote: > >How would making a web site about a secret product be insider trading? > > > >-rc > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Michael Dinowitz [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > > Sent: Thursday, January 03, 2002 11:27 AM > > > To: CF-Community > > > Subject: I was wrong > > > > > > > > > I just checked it out and the stuff I mentioned about being > > > able to speak > > > on overheard topics was concerning insider trading. I'll have > > > to refer you > > > to slashdot's archives for first amendment issues and > > > overheard stuff. > > > > > > > ______________________________________________________________________ This list and all House of Fusion resources hosted by CFHosting.com. The place for dependable ColdFusion Hosting. Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/ Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists
