Now I absolutely despise spam just as much as the next person, but I am curious about the law that these men supposedly broke and why it seems a little hypocritical to me.
To say they "manipulated stocks" seems a little to extreme to me. What they did was essentially aggressively advertising a product they owned stock it, which is something that companies do all the time anyways. I could argue that the commercials I see every day are spam. Matter of fact, pick any particular or specific commercial currently airing on TV and I see that many more times a day than I do any particular or specific spam e-mail in my inbox. I am "spammed" by commercials a lot more than I am "spammed" by e-mails, yet that is perfectly legal. Those companies advertising on TV are doing it to sell a product and in turn inflate their company stock prices, essentially the same thing that these men did, regardless of whether they owned the company or not, it is still basically the same thing. But that is legal, and what they did is not. Why?