I know what you're saying, Old Fart, and your point is very well taken.  I've struggled with that myself but have found an answer that I am comfortable with.

I'm generally for turning everything loose and letting people do what they want with as little governmental intervention as possible.  The problem is, somebody always ruins it for everybody else.  If you think about it, most of the laws we have are simply to close loop holes because somebody had to push things too far. 

That's what you've got here with Tyson.  They've turned what is generally a valid marketing tool for anybody into an angle for them.  You either let it go and let them exploit the situation or you put on restrictions that affect everybody. 

As much as I don't like the idea, I'm inclined to say "restrictions."   The reason I can do this is because we have already done it so many times in the interests of maintaining the fairest markets possible.  Look at the futures markets - there are restrictions on how many contracts one can own.  You also get reported with a small holding. Look at the stock market.  There are laws on who can hold stock, how much you can buy, how much you can sell, when you can do it, etc...  It doesn't seem right that these restrictions exist (poor Martha) , but they are there for a reason, and that reason is for the fairest, smoothest markets possible.

It would be nice to lower the gates and declare a free-for-all with call your own fouls, but that simply doesn't work in real life with money.  Someone always has to get greedy and screw it up.