1

In Stratton Oakmont v Prodigy Services Co., the case that eventually led to the adoption of Section 230, Prodigy was sued for libelous statements posted on their forums by one of their users. According to the decision, these statements stated the following:

(a) STRATTON OAKMONT, INC. ("STRATTON"), a securities investment banking firm, and DANIEL PORUSH, STRATTON's president, committed criminal and fraudulent acts in connection with the initial public offering of stock of Solomon-Page Ltd.;

(b) the Solomon-Page offering was a "major criminal fraud" and "100% criminal fraud";

(c) PORUSH was "soon to be proven criminal"; and,

(d) STRATTON was a "cult of brokers who either lie for a living or get fired."

This case was decided in 1995. Within a few years, CEO Porush pled guilty to securities violations and Stratton Oakmont closed after New York regulators barred them from conducting sales. (The firm is probably now most famous for its portrayal in The Wolf of Wall Street.)

Given what has since come to light, do we know whether the libelous statements posted on Prodigy were actually true? I’ve tried to find details about what Porush actually plead guilty to and whether it concerned the Solomon-Page company mentioned in the forum posts, but I’m having trouble finding anything.

Improve this question
4
  • 3
    While this is law adjacent, it is not on topic. The truth regarding a case that motivated a law is not about what the law is.
    – ohwilleke
    Commented Aug 29 at 23:26
  • It's a question about the history of the law, though?
    – nick012000
    Commented Aug 30 at 4:11
  • 1
    @nick012000 More about the history of politics.
    – ohwilleke
    Commented Aug 30 at 4:30
  • The first and second quote should be easy - either there are records of criminal prosecution or this is an accusation without grounds. (it is common to use the word "criminal" to mean "I think it should be punished", but libel only recognizes the legal definition of "the courts have decided that"). The third cannot be true unless the author has sure and certain knowledge of the future (in which case, the author is a cheaper substitute for the entire justice system.). The fourth statement is potentially provable. Is the plea/disposition on record? Can you link to the research you've done?
    – MCW ♦
    Commented Aug 30 at 13:51

0

Reset to default

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.