Man arrested for tweet on Chidambaram's son

Huzefa Kapasi wrote:ROFLMAOZEDONGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG!!!1!!

kahaan se udta teer gand me ghus jayega is desh mein koi thikana nahin

Kayalvizhi wrote:This is nonsense. He has every right to say Chidamparam's son is corrupt. It is not criminal offense. Let Chthamparam Jr file libel suit

Huzefa Kapasi wrote:ROFLMAOZEDONGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG!!!1!!

he knew defamation was criminal (it is not). he was an entrepreneur with access to privileged legal information. yet he did it knowing the consequences. he should have been booked under non-bailable offenses and denied bail.

kahaan se udta teer gand me ghus jayega is desh mein koi thikana nahin

Merlot Daruwala wrote:This just goes to show that the medium makes all the difference to defenders of free speech. If instead of making a private phone call, if Gupta had posted that privileged information on SUCH or FB or Twitter, far from being branded a criminal, he would have been hailed as setting a new benchmark in corporate governance, featuring unprecendented levels of corporate disclosure and board access to minority shareholders.

FluteHolder wrote:http://www.ndtv.com/article/south/man-arrested-for-tweet-on-chidambaram-s-son-286405?pfrom=home-otherstories

Huzefa Kapasi wrote:

Merlot Daruwala wrote:This just goes to show that the medium makes all the difference to defenders of free speech. If instead of making a private phone call, if Gupta had posted that privileged information on SUCH or FB or Twitter, far from being branded a criminal, he would have been hailed as setting a new benchmark in corporate governance, featuring unprecendented levels of corporate disclosure and board access to minority shareholders.

you know, rajaratnam's trading in GS in the few minutes before the market's closing were miniscule compared to the massive trading that went on in those few minutes. one of rajaratnam's aides is caught saying on the wiretap evidence, "it seems we are not the only ones with this tip..." apparently every member of the board had walked out of the boardroom with his/her phone pressed to his/her ear. they were all posting to their such.

Merlot Daruwala wrote:

Huzefa Kapasi wrote:ROFLMAOZEDONGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG!!!1!!

he knew defamation was criminal (it is not). he was an entrepreneur with access to privileged legal information. yet he did it knowing the consequences. he should have been booked under non-bailable offenses and denied bail.

kahaan se udta teer gand me ghus jayega is desh mein koi thikana nahin

Haha..now you've sparked off a new line of thought. I wonder why the champions of the MOST IMPORTANT right to free speech didn't venture to defend Rajat Gupta's rights in that area. Ultimately, the man was punished for speaking. And there was not one peep in this bastion of free speech against the egregious violation of his most important right. On the contrary, said champions were demanding a steeper punishment.

This just goes to show that the medium makes all the difference to defenders of free speech. If instead of making a private phone call, if Gupta had posted that privileged information on SUCH or FB or Twitter, far from being branded a criminal, he would have been hailed as setting a new benchmark in corporate governance, featuring unprecendented levels of corporate disclosure and board access to minority shareholders.

Propagandhi711 wrote:

Huzefa Kapasi wrote:

Merlot Daruwala wrote:This just goes to show that the medium makes all the difference to defenders of free speech. If instead of making a private phone call, if Gupta had posted that privileged information on SUCH or FB or Twitter, far from being branded a criminal, he would have been hailed as setting a new benchmark in corporate governance, featuring unprecendented levels of corporate disclosure and board access to minority shareholders.

you know, rajaratnam's trading in GS in the few minutes before the market's closing were miniscule compared to the massive trading that went on in those few minutes. one of rajaratnam's aides is caught saying on the wiretap evidence, "it seems we are not the only ones with this tip..." apparently every member of the board had walked out of the boardroom with his/her phone pressed to his/her ear. they were all posting to their such.

"apparently" covers a lot of ground.

Huzefa Kapasi wrote:

Propagandhi711 wrote:

Huzefa Kapasi wrote:

Merlot Daruwala wrote:This just goes to show that the medium makes all the difference to defenders of free speech. If instead of making a private phone call, if Gupta had posted that privileged information on SUCH or FB or Twitter, far from being branded a criminal, he would have been hailed as setting a new benchmark in corporate governance, featuring unprecendented levels of corporate disclosure and board access to minority shareholders.

you know, rajaratnam's trading in GS in the few minutes before the market's closing were miniscule compared to the massive trading that went on in those few minutes. one of rajaratnam's aides is caught saying on the wiretap evidence, "it seems we are not the only ones with this tip..." apparently every member of the board had walked out of the boardroom with his/her phone pressed to his/her ear. they were all posting to their such.

"apparently" covers a lot of ground.

can you explain what you mean in a bit of semantically congruent and florid prose?

Huzefa Kapasi wrote:we know zilch about you. even your gender is amphibious.

Jeremiah Mburuburu wrote:

Huzefa Kapasi wrote:we know zilch about you. even your gender is amphibious.

and her pet frog is ambiguous!

Huzefa Kapasi wrote:are you saying,

a) other than rajat gupta, no other board member leaked information and that information was apparently leaked through other channels,

OR

b) something else.

edit. please understand that rajaratnam's trades were miniscule in comparison to the other (buy) trades that occurred in the GS stock during the closing moments.

Huzefa Kapasi wrote:i truly appreciate your explaining your point in non-sexually-explicit, non-florid, semantically-congruent prose. it remains that i agree with you but i do believe that you are nuts to imagine or to believe that a point does NOT come in an honest man's life when the boundaries of indisecretion do get blurred because of the fact that all his colleagues are indulging in activities that are, in good faith, not considered criminal (till proven otherwise later). it is fair to hang the one caught -- i agree. but it is insensitive to applaud the hanging.

Propagandhi711 wrote:also, why is it insensitive to applaud the hanging?