So far as I can tell, this says that the SEC can gag you from mentioning a limit order to certain people, under certain conditions. To be perfectly clear, it seems the SEC is forbidding the Island ECN from disseminating their own customers' interest to do business among and between NASD member firms! To be even clearer, THEY CAN'T ADVERTISE THEIR QUOTES! THEY CAN'T TALK!Did I get this right? Is saying "I want to sell at 39.80" on the Internet kind of like shouting "fire" in a crowded theater? Do US guarantees of "free speech" only protect lying politicians? Or, since politicians aren't allowed to raise money to discuss issues on TV anymore, does "free speech" only protect pornographers? Is Island being denied free speech, freedom of association, freedom to engage in interstate commerce, or what?In what part of the US Constitution is the power delegated to any controlling legal authority to forbid Island from disseminating offers to buy and sell investment units? What is the world coming to? (Mind you, I think Island was born as a bunch thieving bastards, but I blame that 100% on Nasdaq for being such a bunch of slow-witted suckers.)For crying out loud, what am I missing? MP

I want to make another point on this. Obviously, the people at the SEC are mediocre economists at best. But the problem is not whether what they are doing is smart or dumb, or whether a smarter person - or a person more or less influenced by lobbyists - could be expected to pursue a wiser course of action. The problem is not that we can't expect them to be right, but that we shouldn't need them to be right.The problem is putting the burden on a committee, or any any deliberative body steered by reason, to arrive at the right solution. I mean what if, before people could evolve (and I know they believe this happens) everybody had to sit down and figure why an opposable thumb might work or not? What if it were determined that fins ought not be used to walk on land? Why should the marketplace be held back by conjecture?The beauty, and robustness, of the US free-market system, is it doesn't require anyone to be smart, or anyone to have a certain level of knowledge or information at the outset. It functions even if people are wrong, by displacing them with superior systems. But what if the SEC is perpetually wrong, can we count on finding capital markets that works in some other nation? Have capital markets been working?MP

You know, the more I think about this, the more sickened I am that fast-moving businessmen who produce are letting themselves be reduced to petititoners by a bunch of plodding halfwits, who eat every day at the most expensive restaurants in the world on your tab. Ask any waiter who has worked both places, whether he gets a bigger tip on a two-top at The Palm in Manhattan, or The Palm in Washington DC. Why? Because it's your money, and they are a cancer.What a bunch of pussies Island is! They control the power switch. What's the SEC going to do if they just leave it on? Are they going to send in US Marshals to take control of the facility, and stop the trading of stock between investors and liquidity providers? I'd like to see that! It would wake a lot of people up as to exactly what kind fo a country the US is becoming.I tell you, if I had an ECN, I wouldn't flip the switch for anybody. And most people I know who make money have the same attitude, you know? And when the customers shell out the fees, services who stay turned on and tuned in is what they're paying for. If the SEC had to count on their good graces, to mail out an SEC fee in a separate envelope every time they did a transaction, those losers would have to go door-to-door like the Sierra club.But Island is perfectly happy to have the people who provide liquidity and make the world turn become the petitioners, while high-paid attorneys enjoy three-hour lunches at The Palm. Oh that I had gone to law school, and I could have learned how to become a parasite and banged James' girlfriend.Make a stand, you sissies at Island. MP

There is no freedom of speech in securities law. The legal position is that you can say what you want, but if you deal in securities you must abide by SEC rules. I oppose that analyses because the SEC cannot (and doesn't try hard to) be sure that the speech restrictions are limited to securities.It is legal in the United States to say "the President is an idiot" if you mean the President of the United States. If you mean the president of a corporation you own stock in, it's generally illegal. Why? Because it is a personal attack. True or false, the SEC does not allow shareholders of a corporation to make personal attacks on management or directors. People not associated with shareholders can say what they want, constrained only by the laws of slander (where truth is an absolute defense and the plaintiff must show harm).