Is it true?

Quote























No he doesn't. All the accounts he has were given to him on a plate. At the same time, there are a lot of ImpactRx VP's who don't have enough sales experience to be a VP of BD.
 




You know, all of the people you have just mentioned have visible and important jobs now where they are considered very productive and are quite well-respected.

So, what am I missing here in this name-calling feud?
 


The idiot that I remember increased sales at the three "top five" companies he managed for us, opened up a half-dozen more, and was well-liked and respected by almost everybody, mostly for just taking the time to get to know people. Suits could use some freshening, I agree, as could the repetoire of jokes, but he always "had your back", was in for 100% around the clock, was flawless in a crisis, and never at a loss for ideas. Noisy, yes, but he seemed to have a heart of gold and a real interest in your life - certainly not to everyone's style, but since the rest of management was absent, at least someone showed an interest in the people and the business. Last I heard, btw, was something like 100% growth - makes you wish he was here now
 


From the New York Law Review, September 2011

The right to speak versus the right to redress. The Supreme Court has recognized that the First Amendment protects speech on the Internet, see Reno v. ACLU, 521 U.S. 844, 870 (1997); the Court has also recognized a First Amendment right to engage in anonymous speech, see McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission, 514 U.S. 334 (1995) (recognizing a First Amendment right to distribute anonymous handbills in connection with a tax referendum). But at the same time, the Court has also recognized that there are limitations on the right to free speech, including, among other things, the application of defamation laws. See id. at 351 n.13.

Accordingly, the courts that have considered defamation cases involving anonymous Internet speech have rejected the position that there is an absolute, or near-absolute right to anonymous speech on the Internet. For example, in Melvin v. Doe, 49 Pa. D. & C.4th 449 (Ct. C.P. Allegheny County Nov. 15, 2000), a Pennsylvania Superior Court Judge brought a libel action against 13 anonymous posters who alleged that she lobbied on behalf of a local attorney for a judicial appointment. The Court of Common Pleas held that "the First Amendment protections afforded the anonymous speaker do not extend to speech that may be false and injurious." The court concluded that the First Amendment interests of anonymous posters could be protected only to the extent that they "do not interfere with the underlying purposes of state tort law." Thus, the court concluded, a plaintiff may use discovery to learn the identity of an anonymous defendant once a prima facie case of libel has been established. The court acknowledged that pursuit of the defamation action would require that the anonymous speaker lose his anonymity, but held that "there is no case law which would suggest that the First Amendment leaves the states without any meaningful tort law to discourage the publication of defamatory statements concerning public officials."
 



Write your reply...
Top Bottom
Back
Quote