RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:Defamation judgment upheld.Rumpl3StiltSkin wrote: Sunvalley wrote: Furthermore, upon reflection , the $35,000.00 fine might seem paltry but the costs awarded the plainiffs are undoubtly many , many times that . I would hazard a guess that the costs awarded are in the neighborhood of $150,000 -$200,000.00 due to the time and effort expended to obtain the judgement by the plaintiffs. Bare in mind that this is only my best guess. So , all in all , the guilty parties are going to take a huge monitary hit. "Hit them in the pocketbook" is the true deterrent to future aspiring bashers in my view.
In MBs case I think he probably will just file for bankruptcy. Yet this signals that regulators are watching, and certainly watching this TLT board, probably other TLT boards. Maybe the shorters have moved on due to this, great for us!
I worry that along with those who rightfully deserve to be taken down there could also be those who are openly critical of a companies direction. Will this create a reduction from those folks who have questions, that are not answered by a companies management, but now are worried that anything they say, or observations they might have could place them in jeopardy.
In my opinion that would have the potential of reducing the value of the Stockhouse boards, leaving them open to the,"if you don't like it sell" crowd.
So personal attacks against a companies management are taboo,(I agree with that) but we can still call each other all the names under the sun hiding under our pseudo monikers.
There would seem to be a fine line between outrageous attacks on a companies management and sometimes logical but, for reasons unknown, unanswered questions by a companies management.
So if you fear legal repercussions you don't ask. In other words dumbing down the Stockhouse boards, if that is at all possible.