Topic: How SEC Gag Orders Silence the Accused (Read 66 times)
May I ask who exactly is able to file a "gag order" in the US? Is it limited to the SEC or is it a weapon that can be wielded by anyone (like apparently in Britain).
.....
The question is - why not go in a more interesting way in this case - for example, not to create the appearance of theft of a carrier with this work and its free distribution through torrents, tor-networks and similar, difficult to control and moderated solutions? It seems to me that this would be a fair response to the policy of "gagging" inconvenient information!? Of course, it’s not very legal, but imposing silence under the threat of legislative reprisal is also not the most honest act.
Quote
"They don't want the defendant to tell this side of the story," says Clark Neily of the Cato Institute.
The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) doesn't just regulate the country's financial institutions: As a censor of books, it has no peer. Take its successful suppression of Bob's memoir.
In the early 2000s, the pseudonymous Bob developed a new financial technology to make a lot of money in Texas' energy markets. He made so much money, in fact, that the SEC became suspicious and sued him. To avoid the ruinous penalties and potential criminal charges he was facing, Bob agreed to a favorable settlement with the agency.
A nonnegotiable term of that settlement, and all SEC settlement agreements, is that Bob must never publicly profess his innocence. That's why we can't even use his real name in this story. Given that 98 percent of the people sued by the SEC settle with the agency, these gag orders have proven remarkably effective at shutting down critical speech.
Bob maintains that his business was perfectly legal. He would have happily proved that in court if not for the severe penalties he was facing. He's so adamant about this that he wrote an entire book defending himself and attacking the SEC for its accusations.
In 2018, he went about getting his book published through the Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank.
"I read the memoir and thought, 'This story needs to be told,'" says Clark Neily, senior vice president for legal studies at Cato. But publishing the book would open up Bob, and potentially Cato, to legal liability for violating the agency's gag order.
"This guy has been through hell with the SEC and [the Department of Justice] and didn't want to put a target on him again," says Neily.
So in 2019, Cato sued the SEC. It argued that any attempt to enforce the commission's gag orders violates the First Amendment's free speech protections.
It lost. In June 2021, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled that the Cato Institute did not have standing to sue. That means Bob's book will go unpublished.
It also means that his and countless other accusations of SEC maliciousness and incompetence will never see the light of day.
"They don't want the defendant to tell this side of the story," says Neily. "They know that virtually every defendant is going to settle, so they have a strong interest in making sure that no one ever gets to assess the quality of their investigations or the validity of their allegations."
https://reason.com/2022/07/21/redacted/
The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) doesn't just regulate the country's financial institutions: As a censor of books, it has no peer. Take its successful suppression of Bob's memoir.
In the early 2000s, the pseudonymous Bob developed a new financial technology to make a lot of money in Texas' energy markets. He made so much money, in fact, that the SEC became suspicious and sued him. To avoid the ruinous penalties and potential criminal charges he was facing, Bob agreed to a favorable settlement with the agency.
A nonnegotiable term of that settlement, and all SEC settlement agreements, is that Bob must never publicly profess his innocence. That's why we can't even use his real name in this story. Given that 98 percent of the people sued by the SEC settle with the agency, these gag orders have proven remarkably effective at shutting down critical speech.
Bob maintains that his business was perfectly legal. He would have happily proved that in court if not for the severe penalties he was facing. He's so adamant about this that he wrote an entire book defending himself and attacking the SEC for its accusations.
In 2018, he went about getting his book published through the Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank.
"I read the memoir and thought, 'This story needs to be told,'" says Clark Neily, senior vice president for legal studies at Cato. But publishing the book would open up Bob, and potentially Cato, to legal liability for violating the agency's gag order.
"This guy has been through hell with the SEC and [the Department of Justice] and didn't want to put a target on him again," says Neily.
So in 2019, Cato sued the SEC. It argued that any attempt to enforce the commission's gag orders violates the First Amendment's free speech protections.
It lost. In June 2021, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled that the Cato Institute did not have standing to sue. That means Bob's book will go unpublished.
It also means that his and countless other accusations of SEC maliciousness and incompetence will never see the light of day.
"They don't want the defendant to tell this side of the story," says Neily. "They know that virtually every defendant is going to settle, so they have a strong interest in making sure that no one ever gets to assess the quality of their investigations or the validity of their allegations."
https://reason.com/2022/07/21/redacted/
....
While gag orders may be a new development on american shores. They have been a big part of european and UK daily life for many years. Where they have been known as "super injunctions". Elton John and british corporations have been known to file these legal motions for many years. This is the first time I've heard of them being used in america, however.
Unfortunately, the exposition and back story for these claims aren't the best. They cite only anonymous unnamed sources and the Cato Institute.
If this is true, it would appear that the american legal landscape is becoming more like europe and UK.
I wonder what people think about this. Having mentioned the topic of gag orders and super injunctions to europeans in the past, my impression was they couldn't care less about them. Will americans have the same opinion, I wonder.
Jump to: