Phil Cannella Lawsuit, Phil Cannella Reviews, Phil Cannella Complaints
Phil Cannella explains, in a very shrewd manner, that freedom of speech has two faces and in any society, in any country, that is going to survive as a functional unit, there has to be a freedom of expression, but there also have to be boundaries where that freedom ends.
The Unites States is very fortunate in that the Bill of Rights permits each and every citizen the right to free speech. Yet there is a constant debate as to whether there should or shouldn’t be boundaries to that freedom.
As Phil Cannella puts it, finding appropriate parameters to frame freedom of speech is a very tough task for it can be very open to interpretation. What is most important is judgment. The right to freedom of expression needs to be balanced against the damage that its unrestrained exercise may cause. There are of course issues of security and personal safety, the value of truth and honesty, the need to treat others with respect. These are very important factors that cannot be ignored. It is not true that only sticks and stones can hurt; ignorant, dishonest, malicious, corrupt words and statements can do untold damage to a person, a group, a business, even a society as a whole.
One has to regard freedom of speech not as an absolute, but as an essential. One has to operate within sensible confines. In the Unites States these boundaries are often referred to the courts in order to help demarcate. “Legal restraints operate in conjunction with social norms that change with the times. They cool an absolute freedom, which could otherwise become toxic. Testing the limits while preserving security and respect is a useful enterprise. Freedom of speech is not absolute, but essential”. http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/society-and-culture/should-we-have-an-absolute-freedom-of-speech-20110325-1c9x1.html#ixzz369c2CAsF
Phil Cannella himself had to put the limits of this freedom to the test when he became the target of an online defamation campaign. Under the guise of “freedom of speech” a handful of his competitors posted a volume of defamatory material online. They did so anonymously, hiding behind their fictitious screen names in order to avoid being identified. The material posted on the Internet was not backed up with facts, was not documented as true, it was based on hearsay, it was based on personal vendettas, it was based on lies and untruths. Yet it was very, very damaging, so much so that Phil Cannella was losing a lot of business.
The question Phil Cannella presented to the federal judge required an examination of how far the First Amendment stretches to provide protection for people who publish libelous, slanderous, hateful, malicious and defamatory material online. Would the legal system protect the innocent or the guilty? This is a tough question and not one that judges will answer easily for the whole point of the First Amendment was and is to provide protection for people to enjoy the freedom of expression, something that is forbidden in many societies in the East and West for centuries. Our forefathers however included this as an essential right.
For Phil Cannella it was imperative that this matter be resolved for the false information posted online was creating the exact result his competitors were hoping for which was driving business away from him so that they could increase their market share.
Fortunately, the judge practiced the law without any vested interests and issued a permanent injunction against the perpetrators ordering that the defamatory material be removed from the web. Today Phil Cannella continues to offer his clients real solutions to their financial futures with his Crash Proof Retirement™ system as he continues to bring his message to the everyday investor without the distraction of a handful of ineffective competitors who were not capable of bringing business to their own front door on their own efforts.