Yes, of course: in case if there's information that some press-release contained false information and affected the market significantly. I don't know if there's something on Google, matching these two parameters.
My point is that it doesn't really matter what anybody thinks: it matters what everybody does and what happens because of that. Laws should not be ambiguous. It's widely known that legal system is a mess and a machine or a human without special education cannot operate in that, but we should strive to improve that and not nod and smile at examples of how imprecise and complicated it is.
If it is allowed to tell lies on financial market on 1st of April — it should be specifically pointed out in the corresponding law. If it's not allowed — we shouldn't assume it's allowed. And, more specifically, we shouldn't allow that: meaning that everybody who does break a law, should be punished. If it's not always true — the law must be rewritten to be made more clear, and NOT "ah, we'll put some ambiguous definition: some guys later(=judges) will decide if it's ok".
If "some lies" on financial market are ok "because it's a joke!" — it has to be specifically described in that law which lies are allowed, and what attributes does a "joke" have. Again, if there's no exceptions — then there's no exceptions and any lie that produces changes in the market is a fraud, no matter if you/me/somebody else likes that lie or not.
If you needed a law for every possible circumstance of actions that could occur, you'd have an even more complicated legal system. And one that would fall apart under its own brittleness quite quickly. And would tend toward a dystopic totalitarian state in the meantime.
While I agree the legal system is definitely a mess and needs to be made clearer, more accessible, and more machine readable, I think you're also dismissing (or unaware of) any and all scholarship in law or philosophy. Laws will always have some ambiguity, values precede laws and thus there are 'just' actions that go against the written law, interpretation is a necessity in human matters, the legal system evolves with the changes in the world and can never be all-encompassing, Judges have at least some training in these matters, language is ambiguous and evolves and is the medium of law, etc.
And fwiw, it sounds like the 'joke' was actually a statement about the public markets, and produced evidence to show that the automated trading systems we have can be destabilizing. This evidence, in the form of a joke, is memorable, and can be recalled and used by people during a time that they may be building consensus or making decisions around these matters. And then those decisions may become laws, superseding the ones you're interested in enforcing. A bit of subversion, demonstration, and tests of legality are how the system moves forward.
My point is that it doesn't really matter what anybody thinks: it matters what everybody does and what happens because of that. Laws should not be ambiguous. It's widely known that legal system is a mess and a machine or a human without special education cannot operate in that, but we should strive to improve that and not nod and smile at examples of how imprecise and complicated it is.
If it is allowed to tell lies on financial market on 1st of April — it should be specifically pointed out in the corresponding law. If it's not allowed — we shouldn't assume it's allowed. And, more specifically, we shouldn't allow that: meaning that everybody who does break a law, should be punished. If it's not always true — the law must be rewritten to be made more clear, and NOT "ah, we'll put some ambiguous definition: some guys later(=judges) will decide if it's ok".
If "some lies" on financial market are ok "because it's a joke!" — it has to be specifically described in that law which lies are allowed, and what attributes does a "joke" have. Again, if there's no exceptions — then there's no exceptions and any lie that produces changes in the market is a fraud, no matter if you/me/somebody else likes that lie or not.