Experts Believe the SEC is Violating First Amendment Rights of ICO Operators, Here’s Why
As many of our readers may already know, the US SEC has recently been resorting to the use of gag order tactics in order to enforce a wide array of ‘action settlements’. However, these moves have not gone down well with the global crypto community, with many people calling the regulator’s efforts a direct breach of the First Amendment.
A Closer Look at the Issue
In response to the SEC unjustly using such shady censorship means, Washington D.C.-based Cato Institute along with the Institute for Justice have filed a lawsuit against the SEC— so as to prove that the governing body has been engaging in unlawful activities.
As per the filing:
“The SEC has been participating in wildly inappropriate use of government power… directly contrary to the spirit of accountability and transparency that permeates our founding documents” are correct.
The proceedings were lodged by a representative for The Cato Institute on January 9th. The lawsuit claims that the financial watchdog’s “perpetual, lifetime gag orders” are in direct opposition of the ‘First Amendment’ and thus legal action against the government body has become a must at this point.
The filing also reads:
“The government uses its extraordinary leverage in civil litigation to extract from settling defendants a promise to never tell their side of the story, no matter how outrageous the government’s conduct may have been and no matter how strong the public’s interest may be in knowing how the government conducts itself in high-stakes civil litigation.”
Over the past couple of years, the SEC has been quietly taking a lot of unjust action against ICO operators claiming that such steps were necessary for the protection of the global investor community. However, the regulatory agency has hardly ever given concrete reasons for its actions— thus leading many people to believe (including Hester Peirce) that the SEC was taking part in settlement procedures that usually don't form part of a conventional regulatory strategy.
On the matter, Peirce was also quoted as saying:
“Quite simply, a settlement negotiated by someone to end an investigation that is disrupting or destroying her life should not form the basis on which the law applicable to others is based.”