3 ms·

No, sama is not obligated to censor his honest opinions about random people he doesn't like. The First Amendment (and in some states, SLAPP statutes) protect hi

No, sama is not obligated to censor his honest opinions about random people he doesn't like. The First Amendment (and in some states, SLAPP statutes) protect him from legal threats of censorship. Interference with business relationships is only a thing if (among other conditions) the two parties already have some type of agreement. It does not apply to investors approaching founders they don't even know yet. Slander/libel is only a thing if (among other conditions) the statement is of fact ("Bob is an asshole" etc. are considered opinion and not fact), the statement is false, and the author knows it is false and publishes it anyway. Here's what happens when dumb lawyers try to censor negative opinions with threats: https://popehat.com/2013/06/25/criticize-your-dentist-thats-a-jailin/ https://popehat.com/2013/06/25/criticize-your-dentist-thats-...

deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
jasonmcalacanis 11y ago
The issue here is that the way Sam originally wrote his response, he was clearly saying I leaked information and changed a deal on a startup -- two things I've never, ever done. There really is no upside to leaking information on a startup if you're an investor (all these leaks come from employees typically). On changing a deal, I'm really blunt about what I think a startup is worth... I just tell folks "I would value the company at X, if you can get 3X I suggest you go for it!" In fact, my candidness on this issue has kind of gotten me into this mess with YC to begin with (they haven't appreciated me saying stuff like "only an idiot would do an uncapped note" and "paying a $15m cap to a company with six weeks of data is just dumb." ).