SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Pastimes
Floydie, ZSUN, and the First Amendment
An SI Board Since February 2000
Posts SubjectMarks Bans
20 11 0
Emcee:  Janice Shell Type:  Unmoderated
Late last week Floydie, a well-known SI poster and defendant in a defamation brought by Ziasun in June, was slapped with a temporary injunction. Here's ZSUN's report:

Tuesday January 25, 8:05 am Eastern Time

Company Press Release

SOURCE: ZiaSun Technologies Inc.

U.S. District Court Grants Preliminary Injunction Against Floyd Schneider (a.k.a. Floydie, a.k.a. Truthseeker) Announces ZiaSun Technologies Inc.

SOLANA BEACH, Calif., Jan. 25 /PRNewswire/ -- ZiaSun Technologies Inc. (OTC Bulletin Board: ZSUN - news; www.ziasun.com) today announced that the Company's motion for Preliminary Injunction against Floyd Schneider
(a.k.a. Flodyie, a.k.a. Truthseeker) was granted on January 21, 2000, by Judge Marsha Pechman of the U.S. District Court, Western District of Washington.

In the order granting the Preliminary Injunction, the court indicated it ''is convinced that Schnieder has posted false messages about ZiaSun on the Silicon Investor message boards; that such communications may be unprivileged; and that Schneider was negligent in making the postings. Schneider's electronic postings are also causing damage to ZiaSun.'' Furthermore, the Court stated ''accordingly this Court will balance Mr. Schneider's interest in publishing false and defamatory information about ZiaSun against the potential harm to ZiaSun.''

The injunction specifically prohibits Mr. Schneider from posting false statements about ZiaSun or its officers and employees, including false allegations that any are criminals or ''crims''; false statements suggesting fraudulent activity or dishonest conduct by ZiaSun or its officers and employees; false statements about government investigations into ZiaSun; or implying undisclosed facts about these matters.

The Preliminary Injunction takes effect upon ZiaSun's posting of a $1,000 bond, which has now been done, and would be expected to remain in effect until ZiaSun's pending suit against Mr. Schneider, and others is tried. ZiaSun's suit alleges defamation and several other claims.

Note: Any statements released by ZiaSun Technologies Inc. that are forward-looking are made pursuant to the safe harbor provisions of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. Editors and investors are cautioned that forward-looking statements invoke risk and uncertainties that may affect the Company's business prospects and performances. These include economic, competitive, governmental, technological and other factors discussed in the statements and in the Company's filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

Disclaimer: This transmission was intended only for the party or parties to whom it was directed. If you have received the transmission in error or by other means, it must be destroyed and by no means circulated, copied or otherwise duplicated without the express permission of its author(s). Nothing in the contents transmitted should be construed as an investment advisory, nor should it be used to make investment decisions. There is no express or implied solicitation to buy or sell securities. The author(s) may have positions in the stocks or financial relationships with the company discussed and may trade in the stocks mentioned. Readers are advised to conduct their own due diligence prior to considering buying or selling any stock. All information should be considered for information purposes only. No stock exchange has approved or disapproved of the information contained herein.

SOURCE: ZiaSun Technologies Inc.


biz.yahoo.com

The injunction, ordered by U.S. District Judge Marsha J. Pechman, has stirred considerable controversy on message boards and in legal circles.

Says Lyrissa Lidsky, a professor at the University of Florida who specializes in cases dealing with message boards: "I don't assume that the defendant's an angel here, but this is a very unusual type of remedy. The merits of the case haven't been adjudicated yet. Usually under First Amendment doctrine, a preliminary injunction is treated as what's called a 'prior restraint,' and it's particularly disfavored under the First Amendment. There's a heavy presumption that prior restraints are unconstitutional. Now that two courts have done it is even more surprising. It sounds like a dangerous precedent is being set."

[See: Court Slaps Stock Message-Board Poster With Restraining Order
By Beth Kwon
Staff Reporter
1/31/00 10:12 PM ET
TheStreet.com]

thestreet.com

Sure, Floydie did indeed call ZSUN management "crims"; he's made a number of other allegations as well. Should he have been more cautious? Yes, I think so. Better, perhaps, to raise issues and let readers draw their own conclusions. But on the other hand...

How could Judge Pechman be "convinced" that Floydie posted "false statements", when the defamation case--the usual remedy employed by those who feel they've been damaged by libel or slander--has yet to go to trial? Is Pechman showing the plaintiff unusual favor? She has, after all, heard only ZSUN's side of the story.

This issue isn't just about Floydie and ZSUN, or about the defamation case against message board posters, whatever its merits or lack thereof. This is an issue that potentially touches all of us: the possibility that we might be found "guilty"--even if only temporarily--by judicial fiat.

Doesn't Floydie, and don't the rest of us, have the right to be judged in accordance with accepted standards of "due process"?

 Previous 25 | Next 25 | View Recent | Post Message
Go to reply# or date (mm/dd/yy):
ReplyMessage PreviewFromRecsPosted
20Regis Possino who also was indicted was assistent secretary of BestwayUSA which StockDung-3/9/2013
19You should write "Chief Judge" Marsha J. Pechman a note to say not onlJeffrey S. Mitchell-3/8/2013
18Floyd Schneider a Mark Harris/Ziasun SLAPP victim wishes him good luck on his noStockDung-3/8/2013
17I wonder how long it took to intercept and record 60,000 phone calls and 20,000 Bear Down-2/19/2013
16That really WAS a long time...Janice Shell-2/19/2013
15Floyd Schneider proudly announces the indictment of Mark Harris who was IR of ZiStockDung-2/17/2013
14May 17, 2000 Cybersmear Defendant Ordered To Disclose Info About Contact With ReStockDung-8/24/2000
13 "Prior restraint" law, to the best of my knowledge, applies to the prIlaine-2/4/2000
12 This is off the top of my head after only two cups of coffee, but the standard Ilaine-2/4/2000
11 You are welcome. I could explain that I had criminals in mind, but I guess thaWTMHouston-2/4/2000
10 re: "when you picture who hangs out in the halls of most courthouses."Mighty_Mezz-2/4/2000
9 <<"In the halls of justice, the only justice is in the halls."&WTMHouston-2/3/2000
8 re: "this just doesn't sound like the American way of justice." Mighty_Mezz-2/3/2000
7 U.S. District Court -- Western Washington (Seattle) CIVIQ.-2/2/2000
6 next post is the docket for the case, as of today. I certainly don't like Q.-2/2/2000
5 Notice the key words of Flodyie's retraction, I rest my case re lawyers droSir Auric Goldfinger-2/1/2000
4 Slap back! Here is a link to the despicable and mephitic Varian (VAR & VSEima_posta2-2/1/2000
3 What I'd like to know is what case law (if any) the judge cited to justifyJanice Shell-2/1/2000
2 Janice, I agree. After all, this is not Silicon Investor saying "not in myJeffrey S. Mitchell-2/1/2000
1 My view is that ZSUN, Cragun et. al will regret having drawn the spotlight ontoSir Auric Goldfinger-2/1/2000
 Previous 25 | Next 25 | View Recent | Post Message
Go to reply# or date (mm/dd/yy):