Here's the transcript and here's an excerpt. Do you consider this a win for Kyle and for shareholders?
It's starts at page 39 line 21. Huffman is getting a lesson on First Amendment rights. I realize Kyle's MO has been to try and take those rights away from people he disagrees with, but he can move, along with SFRX where those rights aren't observed or protected. And Huffman can go with him.
21 THE COURT: One thing I -- I mean, it's kind of an
22 elephant in the room. I asked you about it originally.
23 It's not purely an academic question. Because if
24 you're asking -- I want to be clear, if you're asking
25 me to enforce the injunction, there's a question about
1 enforcing that injunction. If it were to be applied to
2 truthful postings, you know, there would be an issue
3 about that, that I don't want to have to deal with.
4 MR. HUFFMAN: Right.
5 THE COURT: What I'm doing today only applies to
6 any postings that contain false factual content.
7 MR. HUFFMAN: And it would be our burden, then, at
8 a hearing that we would have to prove that under the
9 standard. Right?
10 THE COURT: If factual assertions are made and you
11 bring up a hearing and you bring any evidence at all
12 and it's false, then it would up to them, if they
13 wanted to assert that it was true, to -- you know, it
14 would shift to them once you had evidence of the
15 falsity.
16 MR. HUFFMAN: I hate to get academic again, but
17 isn't that kind of giving the defendant in this case
18 the argument or the ability, in his mind, that he
19 thinks that he can post no matter how egregious it is.
20 Because in his mind, if he feels he's right, even
21 if he has no basis of fact and he's doing so however
22 recklessly in disregard to not knowing the facts, are
23 we kind of opening that up for him?
24 THE COURT: Yes, indeed, and that's deliberate.
25 MR. HUFFMAN: Okay.
1 THE COURT: Unfortunately, it has be done that way
2 because there's a First Amendment issue that overhangs
3 all of this stuff that we have to respect.
4 The First Amendment doesn't protect making
5 factually false speech. And there's an injunction
6 against the gentleman posting, and it certainly extends
7 to factually false speech without question.
8 If you wanted to try a different approach to
9 remedies, it would be -- you know, I would consider
10 whatever they were. But I'm not in a position today to
11 tell him that he can't post -- period.
12 MR. HUFFMAN: Well, Judge, that's actually what
13 the stipulation he agreed to and that's what the order
14 enforced.
15 THE COURT: I understand. But I don't understand
16 why you would want to argue with me because this point
17 is obvious.
18 You buy yourself a big, long, expensive
19 appellate process if you try to enforce the injunction,
20 that he agreed to even, against any posting at all even
21 if it's true.
https://www.scribd.com/doc/309769190/4-7-16-S...ne-Hearing
Quote:I'll just chalk it up as another win for Kyle and SFRX shareholders.
It's starts at page 39 line 21. Huffman is getting a lesson on First Amendment rights. I realize Kyle's MO has been to try and take those rights away from people he disagrees with, but he can move, along with SFRX where those rights aren't observed or protected. And Huffman can go with him.
21 THE COURT: One thing I -- I mean, it's kind of an
22 elephant in the room. I asked you about it originally.
23 It's not purely an academic question. Because if
24 you're asking -- I want to be clear, if you're asking
25 me to enforce the injunction, there's a question about
1 enforcing that injunction. If it were to be applied to
2 truthful postings, you know, there would be an issue
3 about that, that I don't want to have to deal with.
4 MR. HUFFMAN: Right.
5 THE COURT: What I'm doing today only applies to
6 any postings that contain false factual content.
7 MR. HUFFMAN: And it would be our burden, then, at
8 a hearing that we would have to prove that under the
9 standard. Right?
10 THE COURT: If factual assertions are made and you
11 bring up a hearing and you bring any evidence at all
12 and it's false, then it would up to them, if they
13 wanted to assert that it was true, to -- you know, it
14 would shift to them once you had evidence of the
15 falsity.
16 MR. HUFFMAN: I hate to get academic again, but
17 isn't that kind of giving the defendant in this case
18 the argument or the ability, in his mind, that he
19 thinks that he can post no matter how egregious it is.
20 Because in his mind, if he feels he's right, even
21 if he has no basis of fact and he's doing so however
22 recklessly in disregard to not knowing the facts, are
23 we kind of opening that up for him?
24 THE COURT: Yes, indeed, and that's deliberate.
25 MR. HUFFMAN: Okay.
1 THE COURT: Unfortunately, it has be done that way
2 because there's a First Amendment issue that overhangs
3 all of this stuff that we have to respect.
4 The First Amendment doesn't protect making
5 factually false speech. And there's an injunction
6 against the gentleman posting, and it certainly extends
7 to factually false speech without question.
8 If you wanted to try a different approach to
9 remedies, it would be -- you know, I would consider
10 whatever they were. But I'm not in a position today to
11 tell him that he can't post -- period.
12 MR. HUFFMAN: Well, Judge, that's actually what
13 the stipulation he agreed to and that's what the order
14 enforced.
15 THE COURT: I understand. But I don't understand
16 why you would want to argue with me because this point
17 is obvious.
18 You buy yourself a big, long, expensive
19 appellate process if you try to enforce the injunction,
20 that he agreed to even, against any posting at all even
21 if it's true.
https://www.scribd.com/doc/309769190/4-7-16-S...ne-Hearing
2
