3 ms·

> Carl Icahn and CNBC should already have been investigated for this open manipulation of the market. I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you (or for that ma

by privong 11y ago

> Carl Icahn and CNBC should already have been investigated for this open manipulation of the market. I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you (or for that matter agreeing with you), but where would you draw the line of free speech?

jldugger 11y ago
You're welcome to disagree with the definition, but the SEC already has defined "fomenting." In fact, there's already a fairly famous episode involving Apple: http://appleinsider.com/articles/09/03/13/jon_stewart_exposes_apple_stock_manipulation http://appleinsider.com/articles/09/03/13/jon_stewart_expose... > this practice of "fomenting the market" is "actually blatantly illegal, but when you have six days and your company may be in doubt because you are down, I think it is really important to foment." Cramer specifically cited the example of stirring up rumors that Apple's iPhone would be rejected by both AT&T and Verizon Wireless, and that it wouldn't be ready to demonstrate in time for Macworld in 2007.
coliveira 11y ago
Free speech cannot be used to protect people who commit crimes against the economy. See for example scammers Kevin Trudeau, who was imprisoned for selling false information. These market manipulators could be convicted in a similar same way.
- icebraining 11y ago
  Kevin Trudeau was imprisoned for contempt of court, not for selling false information.
- privong 11y ago
  > Free speech cannot be used to protect people who commit crimes against the economy. That's a tautology, and not very defining or useful. Of course the things that are crimes are not covered by free speech. But the question was, where do you draw that line? Sure, willfully misleading people can be fraud in some situations (note that lying is protected speech in some situations[0]). But there's a whole continuum of situations relating to speech and the economy. Is it free speech if you publish (true) information about a company that results in the stock price changing? Is it free speech if you publish wrong information that you believe to be true and it results in the stock price changing? What if you publish wild speculation without solid evidence (as people frequently do for predictions of Apple products) and that causes the stock to change? [0] http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/lying.html http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/lying.h...

by privong 11y ago

jldugger 11y ago

You're welcome to disagree with the definition, but the SEC already has defined "fomenting." In fact, there's already a fairly famous episode involving Apple: http://appleinsider.com/articles/09/03/13/jon_stewart_exposes_apple_stock_manipulation http://appleinsider.com/articles/09/03/13/jon_stewart_expose... > this practice of "fomenting the market" is "actually blatantly illegal, but when you have six days and your company may be in doubt because you are down, I think it is really important to foment." Cramer specifically cited the example of stirring up rumors that Apple's iPhone would be rejected by both AT&T and Verizon Wireless, and that it wouldn't be ready to demonstrate in time for Macworld in 2007.

coliveira 11y ago

Free speech cannot be used to protect people who commit crimes against the economy. See for example scammers Kevin Trudeau, who was imprisoned for selling false information. These market manipulators could be convicted in a similar same way.

icebraining 11y ago
Kevin Trudeau was imprisoned for contempt of court, not for selling false information.
privong 11y ago
> Free speech cannot be used to protect people who commit crimes against the economy. That's a tautology, and not very defining or useful. Of course the things that are crimes are not covered by free speech. But the question was, where do you draw that line? Sure, willfully misleading people can be fraud in some situations (note that lying is protected speech in some situations[0]). But there's a whole continuum of situations relating to speech and the economy. Is it free speech if you publish (true) information about a company that results in the stock price changing? Is it free speech if you publish wrong information that you believe to be true and it results in the stock price changing? What if you publish wild speculation without solid evidence (as people frequently do for predictions of Apple products) and that causes the stock to change? [0] http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/lying.html http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/lying.h...