Talk:Joseph Borg (regulator)

Bogus Stratton Oakmont claim...
This page had a bogus claim that Borg's actions led to the shutdown of Stratton Oakmont and prosecution of its executives including Jordan Belfort. The claim, which had been pasted into other wikipedia pages about the fraud, is utterly false. Stratton Oakmont was subject to numerous fraud prosecutions before Borg took office, and the proceeding resulting in its permanent shutdown had already commenced. See http://www.finra.org/Newsroom/NewsReleases/1996/p010592

I don't know if the other claims on this page about Borg are also false, but someone should scour it closely.

Djcheburashka (talk) 07:59, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I've removed the BLP violation in your post. Your crusade here and at Jordan Belfort is disturbing as it smacks of attacks against Borg. I strongly urge you to slow down, or you risk being blocked. Here, I'm going to revert your changes. At the Belfort page, I'll add a comment without reverting at this point.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:20, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't have a "crusade" against Joe Borg, who I'd never heard of until last night. I don't live in Alabama, I don't know what political party he's in, and I'm not a member of either party myself.

I periodically monitor the Belfort page because a) Someone was routinely going through the page to delete updated citations to current facts and replace them with excerpts from Belfort's self-published memoir and from his promotional materials; b) That's particularly dangerous when its the page of someone convicted for running a financial fraud so damaging it resulted in several entirely new sections of the securities laws; and c) Mr. Belfort has a proven record of seeking to censor Internet discussion of his frauds -- take a look at the page for Stratton Oakment v. Prodigy. Indeed, in the mid-1990s his actions were viewed as a threat to the Internet itself (yes, really!) and led directly to the passage of Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act.

There is a good probability that if Mr. Belfort had not been convicted, there would be no such thing as wikipedia at all.

Here, I saw the reference to Mr. Borg in Mr. Belfort's page and recognized it as false. To make sure, I checked the citations and did a bit of googling. What I discovered quite quickly, is a lengthy campaign by Mr. Borg -- including interviews with him in various Alabama publications and a profile in the Wall St. Journal -- of falsely claiming a role in a number of high-profile fraud cases.

I'm offended by that. I suspect that if you take a look at those articles and the citations I provided, that you'll be offended too.

Asking for talk and consensus before implementing changes is certainly fair. I've provided the citations, above and in the edits that were reverted.

How about we give it, say, a week and if no-one offers evidence or argument to the contrary, I'll put them back in?

P.S.: I think its only fair, before accusing me or others of going on improper "crusades," to take a look at supplied citations and the changes, and see whether the changed material or revisions are easily demonstrated as true or false.

Djcheburashka (talk) 20:37, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
 * "There is a good probability that if Mr. Belfort had not been convicted, there would be no such thing as wikipedia at all." Surely that's not what you meant to say.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:42, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

It is what I meant to say. Well, perhaps "caught" rather than "convicted." Remember that CDA 230 was enacted for the specific purpose of overturning the Stratton Oakmont v. Prodigy case, which had allowed Stratton Oakmont to sue an ISP for libel based on a user's accusation that SO was committing fraud. Before SO was shutdown, people widely expected the lobbying efforts that led to CDA 230 to fail, and efforts by law enforcement and copyright holders to pervasively regulate the Internet, limiting it to a broadcast medium, to succeed. My recollection is that SO's shutdown allowed the ISPs lobbying for CDA 230 to say "we told ya so," and led directly to the passage of the bill.

There is no question that, in the years that followed, when the Courts were called upon to interpret CDA 230 and chose to apply it not just to telecom-ISPs, but websites generally, that SO was a huge factor. In the first years after, very few people believed that CDA 230 would apply beyond ISPs. The continuing revelations about Stratton Oakmont and Belfort were cited in every brief, and argued to every court. It was the fact that ended the argument. ——— When something has become as ubiquitous in the culture as free speech on the Internet, it can be hard to remember that things almost didn't turn out this way. There was a fork in the road, and we could have easily taken the other path. Belfort getting caught was one of the crucial events that changed the course of things.

In any event, genealogy of the Internet aside, have we now agree that we're giving this a week and unless there are facts introduced to the contrary that I'm putting the edits back in? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Djcheburashka (talk • contribs) 03:24, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Someone took out the prior change to this without explanation or discussion. I'm putting it back, and taking out the rest per this talk page. If its reverted again without discussion I'll ask for it to be locked.

Djcheburashka (talk) 00:53, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, the other claims appear to be false as well...
A little bit of digging shows that the other claims on the page appear to be false also. For example, when Borg pursued Greater Ministries International, the firm had *already* been shut by regulators in other states.

Similarly, it claims that Borg "led" an "investigation" by multiple states into investment banks in 2002, leading to $1.8 billion in settlements. This is false. The citations point to the so-called "analyst fraud" cases of the early 2000s. Those cases were brought by federal regulators. Filing "me too" lawsuits does not entitle the state of Alabama, or Borg, to take credit for other people's hard work. (See http://www.finra.org/Newsroom/NewsReleases/1996/p010592 )

I'm deleting that part too -- someone who knows Alabama should really scrub this piece. I will try to come back and do more later.

Djcheburashka (talk) 08:09, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Is there any reason to include his views on social security at all?
I thought it should come out when I first edited the page, but didn't want to go further than I had. Now it looks like there's been some edits back and forth on how to deal with the social security claim.

Why is it there at all? Borg is a state official charged with regulating a subset of local securities-laws matters. There's no public record of Borg having any role in the debate over social security at all. His views on the subject don't appear to be notable for any reason. And in fact, the view expressed here, is barely even a "view." It reads like someone's debate talking point.

Since I'm apparently going to be revising most of this page in a few days, after giving people time to discuss and object -- unless someone presents a reason to the contrary, I'm going to take the social security stuff out entirely. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Djcheburashka (talk • contribs) 04:55, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Joseph Borg (regulator). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://archive.is/20050201134408/http://www.nasaa.org/About_NASAA/NASAA_Board_of_Directors/ to http://www.nasaa.org/About_NASAA/NASAA_Board_of_Directors/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 11:49, 30 November 2017 (UTC)