There goes your anonymity....

Well,I have to stand down on this one.I'm not a lawyer,and never wanted to be one,so I'm not going to go rooting around through law books and old court cases,but if this crap goes through,I can already see every blue collar worker with an internet connection getting everything he's going to make for the rest of his life taking away by multi-millionaire CEO's because he said that this program sucks or that program sucks(insert reason why).Reguardless of whether it's true or not,your average person isn't going to be able to find a lawyer that can stand up to a team of crack Harvard law graduates that these company's can afford to hire who can and would twist around anything anyone says and make it look like libel,slander,or whatever else to make a few million dollars.Just think about the vast amount of people who have called M$ insecure(and/or whatever else).It would be impossible to raise a decent defense against an enterprise like that.Even if you could raise a decent defense at first,their lawyers would throw so many appeals,continuations,and anything else to tie up the process while costing you money that eventually you wouldn't be able to afford a lawyer anymore.Most of these people are nothing but tyrants that would cut their mother's throat for a dime.Look at all of the huge corporate scandals that have happened lately.This is just a wide open gateway for every greedy/corrupt CEO to make their wallet fatter,and I'd be willing to bet they'll take the courts up on this oppurtunity if it presents itself.

Actually i have to say that i never believed in the Right Of Speach amendment. I have to say that this amendment can be reversed a little just like gghornet said. When somebody has a couple of million dollars to throw around this amendment will be changed. We may have the right to look at a cop a say "f**ck you" and he will let it go but do it to somebody with a lot of money and he feels like he wants you to be punished you will be punished. They always find a way to go around this things. I think that the first amendment is not the same as from 100 years ago. Money is starting to run our society too much. When it gets to the point that money can make the higher ranked people in the country switch around with the laws then we all can say good bye to any of the amendments. That is how i feel i don't know about anybody else but i definetely agree with gghornet.

Quote:

---

I can already see every blue collar worker with an internet connection getting everything he's going to make for the rest of his life taking away by multi-millionaire CEO's

---

I understand your concern, and to a certain extent I share it. I think a lot of things have gotten way out of hand lately, and there's no sign of it slowing down. I think we're all concerned about these issues.

But the thing is this: If someone makes false statements about Company X's financial situation in a Usenet group, and those statements cause the company's stock value to tank and the shareholders lose a few million dollars collectively, what recourse does the company have against those false statements? Or should they just eat the loss and ignore it? Keep in mind that the board of directors has a fiduciary duty to the shareholders, and they can be sued in their individual capacities by the shareholders if they fail to protect the company's stock value.

So what should they do?

Quote:

---

because he said that this program sucks or that program sucks(insert reason why)

---

Again, that's a statement of opinion that's immune to suit as long as the reason is truthful and not mailcious.

Quote:

---

who can and would twist around anything anyone says and make it look like libel,slander,or whatever else to make a few million dollars

---

From blue collar workers who don't have anything? :D A lawsuit has to be practical. As the old saying says, you can't get blood out of a turnip. You may get a big judgment against the defendant, but if they don't have anything you'll never collect it and the suit will end up costing the plaintiff a fortune. Why would you spend the money to bring a suit you can never collect on?

Again, I definitely see where you're coming from, but there has to be some recourse for the injury.

I want to say that what I'm about to say is *not* directed at gghornet..... he's a sharp guy that I think a lot of. This has been bothering me for a while in the AO community. But a lot of times these kinds of legal issues get clouded by class envy. Politicians have figured out that if they can keep corporate and middle America busy fighting with each other, nobody will notice that they (the politicians) keep going to the bank and riding this country like a Big Wheel. It's a simple plan, and it happens to work. They have manufactured a knee-jerk anti-corporate mentality so they will have something to talk about on the stump next election. And they've been doing it for so long now that after couple of generations have been brought up eating and breathing it, people don't recognize it for what it is anymore.

I guess what I'm taking the long way around of saying is that a lot of people think the corporation is wrong just because they're the corporation, and I don't buy that.

Quote:

---

Again, that's a statement of opinion that's immune to suit as long as the reason is truthful and not mailcious.

---

Not necessarily true.If,to use the M$ example again,I were to say Windows XX is insecure along with a reason,that is no longer a matter of opinion.Than all M$ would have to do is convince the court that this statement is untrue(because of the release of a patch or whatever),and I'm out however much money.

Quote:

---

We may have the right to look at a cop a say "f**ck you" and he will let it go but do it to somebody with a lot of money and he feels like he wants you to be punished you will be punished.

---

Well,I just recently moved from the St. Louis area,and one thing I can tell you about cops in that area at least is that if you say ***** you to one of them you're going to get beat like a red headed step child,and if you proceed to try and press charges for it you're going to lose.I agree that it someone should be able to say that,but all they have to do is make up a story that you appeared as if you were going to hit him and you're going to lose,but I definately agree with the second half of your statement.

Other than those two statements I've lost this debate so far.I don't think a company should be forced to eat losses because of what someone says,but the simple fact of the matter is I don't trust corporate CEO's to only use a law such as this in self defense,and with good reason.