PDA

View Full Version : Article: Feds Target Bloggers, Free Speech




LibertyEagle
10-12-2009, 04:11 PM
http://www.jbs.org/jbs-news-feed/5479-feds-target-bloggers-free-speech-


Feds Target Bloggers, Free Speech
Written by Alex Newman
Friday, 09 October 2009 01:28

computerThe Federal Trade Commission (FTC) announced this week that it would be policing blogs and social media for the first time, cracking down on “reviewers” and advertisers who fail to provide full disclosure in endorsements, sparking intense outrage among the regulated. Violators can be subject to $11,000 fines per infraction.

"Given that social media has become such a significant player in the advertising area, we thought it was necessary to address social media as well," explained the FTC’s assistant director of advertising practices Richard Cleland, describing the agency’s first overhaul of its endorsement policies in almost 30 years. The proposal was adopted with the unanimous approval of all four commissioners.

More than 80 pages of confusing new rules will now govern bloggers’ and even social media users’ activity. If they are paid to write an endorsement, or even if they receive an item for free and then write about it, everything must be noted “clearly and conspicuously.” There are also provisions mandating that people disclose any “material ties.”

When companies give a reviewer a product to write about, they “should have procedures in place to try to monitor his postings for compliance,” explains an example provided in the FTC rules. How should people know whether the FTC will consider something an endorsement? According to the regulations: “The facts and circumstances that will determine the answer to this question are extremely varied and cannot be fully enumerated here …”

In addition, the rules purport to require everybody to disclose “typical” results of using a product, to be determined by the FTC on a case-by-case basis. “The new rules would require bloggers to clearly disclose what type of results they should expect to receive from a product. Currently, advertisers only have to display a small "results not typical" tagline if they feature an endorser who had an unusual level of success with their product. Now, they have to disclose what the average consumer should expect,” notes PC Mag.

The new advertising regime also covers celebrities, research funding, and even people posting a message through a social networking website. A writer for PC World points out that they can even apply “to anyone commenting on blogs, in forums, and in chat rooms. They apply to employees of a company who become a 'fan' of their employer on Facebook or say something nasty about a competitor's product on Yelp.”

Some groups were delighted by the news, like the Consumer Federation of America. "Consumers are increasingly dependent on the Internet for purchase information," a spokesman for the organization told the Associated Press. "There's tremendous opportunity to steer consumers to the wrong direction." But the decision has also stirred up a hornet's nest of protest, and state laws against fraud already exist.

The rules will be impossible to enforce properly, point out some malcontents. The agency has a staff of around 1,000, and considering that there are millions of blogs and even more people who use social networking programs like Facebook, it does indeed seem like the regulations will be difficult to apply. But they do succeed in creating uncertainty among Internet users, and there is certainly the potential for selective enforcement.

Critics across the internet are blasting the new policies, which will become effective December 1 of this year, as unconstitutional, unnecessary and inappropriate. Other opponents have mocked the plan, writing pieces facetiously endorsing multiple products and ridiculing the FTC. Some have been downright offended: “Should bloggers be legally bound to prove that they are not unethical liars?” wondered one writer (http://www.itpro.co.uk/blogs/daveyw/2009/10/08/are-all-bloggers-liars/).

Another outraged blogger wrote the FTC an open letter (http://knappster.blogspot.com/2009/10/not-only-no-but-f-k-no.html):


"Dear Federal Trade Commission:

This is my blog, not your blog. I will write whatever I choose to write, I'll write it for whatever reasons I choose to write it, and I'll disclose as much or as little about those reasons as I d*** well please.

If you think you can squeeze $11,000 out of me over it, feel free to try. You won't get a dime you don't take at gunpoint, and the only way you'll stop me from continuing to write as I please is to stick me in jail or kill me.

Yours in liberty (hah!),
KN@PPSTER"

People are right to be angry. The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution reads “Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech.” That obviously includes unconstitutional agencies created by Congress as well.

While some bloggers may behave unethically, they will be discovered and discredited. State laws already prohibit fraud. Plus, people should be trusted to assume responsibility and use discretion and proper judgment when searching for information even without federal intrusion. And the government should stop making excuses to regulate everything, continuing its never-ending expansion of power.


Alex Newman is an American freelance writer and the president of Liberty Sentinel Media, Inc., a small media consulting firm. He is currently living in Sweden and has spent most of his life in Latin America, Europe and Africa. He has a degree in foreign languages and speaks Spanish, French, Portuguese, German, Italian and a little Swedish and Afrikaans. In addition, he earned a degree in journalism from the University of Florida, with emphasis on economics and international relations.

RonneJJones
10-12-2009, 05:57 PM
The article claims that the FTC is targeting "'reviewers' and advertisers who fail to provide full disclosure in endorsements." If this is accurate, then the issue here is about advertisers making claims where relevant information is withheld or misleading, potentially damaging a private party who relies on said information to procure a product or service. So yes, the US Constitution certainly grants no power to the Government to regulate this activity. But Tort law certainly gives the damaged party the ability to pursue damages in a court of law, assuming they can prove that the misleading or withheld information caused said damage. Bottom line, the entire realm of activity is outside the purview of gov't control.

I wish JBS would present this kind of development in a more straightforward, less propagandistic manner. It's pretty straightforward.

dannno
10-12-2009, 06:11 PM
I wish the govt. would stay off my internets.

LibertyEagle
10-12-2009, 06:13 PM
The article claims that the FTC is targeting "'reviewers' and advertisers who fail to provide full disclosure in endorsements." If this is accurate, then the issue here is about advertisers making claims where relevant information is withheld or misleading, potentially damaging a private party who relies on said information to procure a product or service. So yes, the US Constitution certainly grants no power to the Government to regulate this activity. But Tort law certainly gives the damaged party the ability to pursue damages in a court of law, assuming they can prove that the misleading or withheld information caused said damage. Bottom line, the entire realm of activity is outside the purview of gov't control.

I wish JBS would present this kind of development in a more straightforward, less propagandistic manner. It's pretty straightforward.

:rolleyes:


Alex Newman is an American freelance writer and the president of Liberty Sentinel Media, Inc., a small media consulting firm. He is currently living in Sweden and has spent most of his life in Latin America, Europe and Africa. He has a degree in foreign languages and speaks Spanish, French, Portuguese, German, Italian and a little Swedish and Afrikaans. In addition, he earned a degree in journalism from the University of Florida, with emphasis on economics and international relations.

dannno
10-12-2009, 06:15 PM
The article claims that the FTC is targeting "'reviewers' and advertisers who fail to provide full disclosure in endorsements." If this is accurate, then the issue here is about advertisers making claims where relevant information is withheld or misleading, potentially damaging a private party who relies on said information to procure a product or service. So yes, the US Constitution certainly grants no power to the Government to regulate this activity. But Tort law certainly gives the damaged party the ability to pursue damages in a court of law, assuming they can prove that the misleading or withheld information caused said damage. Bottom line, the entire realm of activity is outside the purview of gov't control.

I wish JBS would present this kind of development in a more straightforward, less propagandistic manner. It's pretty straightforward.

So you're saying if I have a blog and write about what a great McMuffin I had that morning, and somebody gets poisoned by a McMuffin, I should be held liable for giving it a positive review??

pcosmar
10-12-2009, 06:29 PM
I wish JBS would present this kind of development in a more straightforward, less propagandistic manner. It's pretty straightforward.

How would you "feel" about the same story form someone other than JBS?
http://sayanythingblog.com/entry/ftc_to_target_bloggers_with_disclosure_requirement s/

So what if you’re an anonymous blogger who posts a review of a book? Whistler, my co-blogger here on Say Anything, is anonymous. What if he read Glenn Beck’s new book and posted a review of it here on the blog. How could he comply with the FTC’s guidelines without divulging his identity?

What’s made blogging unique is that it has opened up a potential audience of millions for even the most amateur of amateurs. Heaping new government regulations onto the back of people who are writing about politics or their favorite books, etc. in their free time is a good way to shut those people down out of fear of getting fined.

Which might actually be the unstated objective of this move.
http://blog.searchenginewatch.com/090410-113120

If the Federal Trade Commission has its way, bloggers and social network users will soon be liable for their reviews of businesses and products. New regulations would allow them to be sued for anything they write that would be false.

Supposedly, these new regulations would be restricted to "pay-per-post" content, but I'm sure lawyers will find a way to target all content. (Hint: they already do. These regulations would help, yes, the lawyers!)

The FTC should go back to elementary school. That's when kids learn that opinions are not true or false - only facts are. They even have homework assignments about it.

For a government agency full of people staffed by politicians, going after bloggers for truthiness is like the pot calling the kettle black.

There are many others. I am not going to post all here.
What was your point again?

Rael
10-12-2009, 06:39 PM
Fuck the FTC

RonneJJones
10-12-2009, 06:53 PM
How would you "feel" about the same story form someone other than JBS?
http://sayanythingblog.com/entry/ftc_to_target_bloggers_with_disclosure_requirement s/

Exactly the same.

But when I see a trend coming from a given source, I'm going to point it out, no matter who the source.

RonneJJones
10-12-2009, 06:59 PM
So you're saying if I have a blog and write about what a great McMuffin I had that morning, and somebody gets poisoned by a McMuffin, I should be held liable for giving it a positive review??
Are you providing your readers with misleading information about your McMuffin experience? Are you withholding any information about the McMuffin or your relationship with McDonalds or it's agents? So, if your readers can't prove in a court of law that the information that you provided (or did not provide) directly led to them being damaged in some way (poisoned), then they don't have a case against you.

Now, if you're getting paid $10,000/month by Toshiba to provide online reviews of Toshiba laptops, and you are selling yourself as an independent journalist/reviewer, well that is another matter. However, a private party (one of your readers) would still need to prove that they relied on your "independent" advice and were somehow damaged as a result of you withholding (not disclosing) your financial relationship with Toshiba.

No matter the situation, the government's involvement is as a judicial mediator in a Tort case, not as a regulator on the front end.

RonneJJones
10-12-2009, 07:03 PM
I wish the govt. would stay off my internets.
Ummm, it's their Internet. They thought it up, designed it, built it, distributed it and paid for it. You're just the public pawn who had his pockets picked and is now the target of it's "Web."

pcosmar
10-12-2009, 07:03 PM
Exactly the same.

But when I see a trend coming from a given source, I'm going to point it out, no matter who the source.
So yo mean to say you are fine with the government violating the 1st amendment.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

RonneJJones
10-12-2009, 07:05 PM
So yo mean to say you are fine with the government violating the 1st amendment.
No, where did I say anything that would give you that idea?

pcosmar
10-12-2009, 07:14 PM
No, where did I say anything that would give you that idea?

This.


I wish JBS would present this kind of development in a more straightforward, less propagandistic manner. It's pretty straightforward.

Though the article was quite clear on the anger being expressed across the web, and on this point.

People are right to be angry. The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution reads “Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech.” That obviously includes unconstitutional agencies created by Congress as well.

So what is "propagandistic" about it?

YumYum
10-12-2009, 07:16 PM
A blog that says "Dude! I'm not shitting! I've got a cure for cancer!" will draw a lot more interest than the same claim that has "Paid Advertisement" stamped on it. People don't trust advertisements and it isn't just bloggers who are doing this. Yahoo has news articles that will give results of a new scientific study that has been released, and then in that same article they will plug a product or medicine associated with the study. While it is a clever way to advertise, it is also deceiving.

pcosmar
10-12-2009, 07:23 PM
While it is a clever way to advertise, it is also deceiving.

And just look at the MSM, scan this news search,
http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&source=hp&q=Vaccine%20maker&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=wn

See any "advertising" for major drug companies?