To Matt: I believe you put your finger on the primary problem. As Jimlur says, why call this website Investor's Hub? As the Header of the IDCC Board implies, it is intended to be a place where people of good will can find relevant information and useful discussion about the investment value of IDCC. There is no prohibition against discussing the weaknesses and risks of IDCC, and many board members do so in reasoned ways that give proper balance to the overall discussion (rmarchma comes to mind with his extensive list of "concerns and weaknesses").
The problem arises, it seems to me, when someone comes along who has no investment interest in IDCC, and serves no other function than to "badmouth" IDCC with a singleminded focus, who "mocks" those (or the views of those) who defend the value of IDCC (without necessarily engaging in "profane or personally insulting language" that would have him jailed), who never acknowledges valid reasons for investing in IDCC, and frequently comes to the defense of a different stock altogether. In effect, his posts do little more than provide the function of a "full disclosure of risks" or a "safe harbor statement" repeated over and over again. Now there may be some benefit to being made aware of possible risks, but if a person is unwilling to ever acknowledge possible benefits and repeatedly tries to discredit discussions of such possible benefits, then you can see how this might be viewed by sincere investors as a great distraction and frustration of their desire for constructive discussion, and an attempt to undermine the purpose for which the board was created in the first place. In effect, it tries to turn upside down the formal SEC and other statements provided by the company IDCC itself, by trying to make the "full disclosure of risk" as more credible and believable than the company statement of policy and goals and achievements. If the company believed this to be the case they would be obligated to so inform its shareholders. The implication is that this offensive poster is maligning the management of IDCC, and confusing the minds of board members in their efforts to make a balanced assessment of benefits and risks for an investment in IDCC.
In my opinion, "free speech" should not permit someone to subvert the purpose for which the board was created in the first place. If someone has an "agenda" contrary to the purpose of the board, it seems to me to be self-defeating to permit such a person of "ill will" towards the purpose of the board to exercise "free speech" in a community organized as a voluntary association to fulfill that shared purpose. Does such a person make a useful contribution to the board that outweighs his harmful effects? I doubt it. He does not advance the discussion creatively or constructively. He is like a broken record repeating essentially a disclosure of risks and in a way that is in your face.
Sophist
AI
Market Data 
Markets 
