To: the_big_guy who wrote (31554) 2/16/2013
Post# of 43064
Posted On: 02/16/2013 6:53:46 PM
| To: the_big_guy who wrote ( 31554 ) | 2/16/2013 7:40:47 AM |
| From: oldnsalty | of 31565 |
| "The Court Order says more or less for the defendants not to talk ab out JBI. Quite harmless." I expect that the defendants might disagree....and more than just a little. I wouldn't find it harmless if I was under such a constraint. I can't imagine being prohibited from having an open discussion of virtually any subject, assuming that it doesn't involve a threat or the actual commission of a libel. In the US I believe they call that the prior restraint of a fundamental freedom. Keep in mind that the judgment doesn't just prohibit any libeling of the plaintiff(s), it actually prohibits any discussion of them. It still amazes me and for you to call it "quite harmless" suggests to me that you either don't fully grasp it or that we have a different sense of the value of fundamental human rights. These defendants have been forced to give up a freedom that the rest of us (us as in U.S.) have. Indeed, a freedom that you and I are enjoying in this very conversation. The defendants in the SEC case, on the other hand and apart from fines and a faux ban, have been told that they are not to break a specific set of laws......an obligation that everyone else has. If anything is "quite harmless", it's that. | |
(0)
(0)Plastic2Oil, Inc. (PTOI) Stock Research Links
Scroll down for more posts ▼