RE: So Sue Me ... A lesson in libelThere is a fine line betwen freedom of expression and defamation. For example, I understand that it is perfectly fine to say that :"It is my opinion that a... b... is an incompetent scoundrel" and actually saying "a... b........ is an ......".
One is entitled to an opinion and to express something as being your opinion. You are not entitled to make the allegation itself without consequences.
Looking at ome of these comments, some would appear to be libellous, others simply do not appear to be so. But that is only my opinion.
Is overstatement libellous? Could one say without being libellous that under some CEO's farsighted, outstanding, Warren Buffett/Bill Gates like leadership, his company stock went from 60 cents in mid 2008 to 3 cents at the end of 2008? Stop laughing, this is a serious topic and i want a serious answer. But do not compare that CEO's leadership to Bre-X's David Walsh or Bernie Ebbers of World com as that could definitely be considered libellous. I do not know if Bernie Ebbers would sue for libel as a result of that statement
One can assert facts without libel, for example during this period, while Augen lost about 95% of it's share value, Mr Mason received $......... in salary, a vehicle or vehicle allowance, an unknown number of lunches paid for by the company AND ...... stock options. Some might respond that shareholders who bought shares at 60 cents in mid 2008 had 95% of their lunch eaten, may have walked or took the bus, received no stock options and suffered financial indigestion but that is just jounalistic license..
Someone raised an interesting point in regard to who would pay for Augen's lawsuit against these three posters. If he were to claim that the lawsuit arose out of his duties as an officer of Augen, he would look for the company to pay his legal fees.
If the alleged wrongdoing was of a non business matter and perhaps went to a morality or other issue, then arguably the CEO would not be so entitled. For example, if someone were to say that a CEO consistently kept more than his limit of salmon on fishing trips or that he fished with women other than his wife, that is not a corporate matter. If they said that the CEO used company funds to pay for numerous fishing trips which were not for business purposes, that is a grey area. To be clear, I am not saying that some unidentified unnamed CEO is a poacher or wrongfully uses corporate funds to fund fishing trips or other things. I have no idea of what that CEO does or where he gets the monies for certain activities or whether they are nefarious..
Lastly, he is not and never has been a member of Wide Mouth Mason!