Another assault on the First Amendment.

[03_SHOOTER]

So let me get this right, if you try something out, and you don't like it, even if it's because you're too stupid to figure out how to make it work properly (how many VCR's in America were blinking 12:00 for years because people couldn't figure out how to get the time set?), and you write your opinion about it in a blog and recommend another brand that you like better, the FTC can come down on you claiming that you were engaged in "false advertising"?

Maybe it's just me, but the last time I read my (obviously redacted) copy of the Constitution, it very clearly said; "Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech...", and it doesn't make any exceptions for "false advertising", or saying things that are "unpopular", or any other exceptions either!

Report: FTC to Crack Down on Blog Endorsements (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,512457,00.html)

Friday, April 03, 2009
FOXNEWS

Federal Trade Commission may be going after bloggers and Facebook users.

Not just any bloggers or social networkers, mind you. Rather, the Financial Times reports, the government consumer watchdog will be cracking down on people who post false statements endorsing certain products — and the makers of those products as well.

Advertisers have recently taken to using viral marketing to sneak product endorsements into blogs and social networks. Typically, no money is involved, but bloggers and commenters are given free samples or gadgets to try out — and then keep.

The FTC doesn't have a problem with that approach. But in a sort of backhanded endorsement, the federal agency may be showing that it accepts the practice by taking it seriously enough to crack down on false claims made in this way, just as it cracks down on false claims in regular ads.

"The [guidelines on endorsements and testimonials] needed to be updated to address not only the changes in technology, but also the consequences of new marketing practices," FTC official Richard Cleland told the Financial Times. "Word-of-mouth marketing is not exempt from the laws of truthful advertising."

Advertising trade representatives contacted by the Financial Times didn't dwell on the positive aspects.

"Regulating these developing media too soon may have a chilling effect on blogs and other forms of viral marketing," vice-president of the American Association of Advertising Agencies Richard O'Brien wrote the FTC.

[DoubleHelix]

Isn't this more of an expansion onto the laws regarding false advertisement?

For years I've read many reviews of things online (where the reviewer was obviously provided the material being reviewed for free) and found the actual product to be in stark contrast of the positive review.

[03_SHOOTER]

Isn't this more of an expansion onto the laws regarding false advertisement?

For years I've read many reviews of things online (where the reviewer was obviously provided the material being reviewed for free) and found the actual product to be in stark contrast of the positive review.

I'm in a fairly good mood this morning so I'll be gentle. Please direct me to the exact Article, Section, and Clause wherein the federal government, or any of it's agents (as in the FTC) are authorized to in any way regulate speech, or the press. The only one I can find relates to Treason, and the qualifications for that are very clearly laid out. If no other such provision exists, then any law that in any way abridges any Americans freedom of speech is unconstitutional on it's face. That is the very bedrock upon which our nation was founded.

No, slander and libel are the purview of the State and local courts as any slander or libel case should involve only the individuals directly involved, but for the government to get involved constitutes oppression and censorship. Let us not forget about the Alien and Sedition Acts of the Adams administration, wherein hundreds, if not thousands, or people were arrested, charged, tried, convicted, sentenced, and imprisoned for speaking out against the President and members of his Cabinet.

[Sarah81]

Nanny.gov is already doing too much babysitting. There is no need to "regulate" statements made on the Internet because we have libel lawsuits. The attorneys and courts already deal with this problem, whether or not it occurs online, so there is no reason to have the FTC, or other alphabet-soup agency, extend its already-outrageous reach.

If you (general "you") blindly believe everything that you read online without researching extensively before you buy whatever that site or person is hawking, then you deserve what you get for refusing to take responsibility for your own choices and finances.

If you cannot be bothered to spend time researching and asking questions before you open your wallet, then no amount of Internet regulation is going to save you. There are all sorts of lies, scams, and schemes, both online and in "the real world." No amount of government intrusion will protect us from everything, and it's not like we should rely on the nanny state to "help" us with this sort of problem in the first place.

[03_SHOOTER]

Exactly Sarah81. As the old maxim goes; Caveat Emptor (let the buyer beware).

[Sarah81]

Buyer beware, indeed. Modern society's fortunate, because we can get online and find more opinions and product reviews than we know what to do with. Before the Internet became a common, household feature, you had to work harder to find the information. So, what's the excuse for not spending five minutes with a search engine but, instead, expecting the nanny state to protect you from those evil companies?

[Woody]

Freedom of speech does not cover fraud .Cracking down on false advertising is not censorship .

[03_SHOOTER]

Freedom of speech does not cover fraud .Cracking down on false advertising is not censorship .

Freedom of speech covers EVERYTHING tim, and this is something that a lot of Subjects such as yourself tends to have trouble getting your heads wrapped around, that while there may be consequences for that speech, we believe that you should still be able TO say it. We don't believe in preemptively legislating peoples actions, because doing so is anathema to FREEDOM AND LIBERTY, which is the bedrock of our nation.

[HairyEyeball]

Freedom of speech covers EVERYTHING tim, and this is something that a lot of Subjects such as yourself tends to have trouble getting your heads wrapped around, that while there may be consequences for that speech, we believe that you should still be able TO say it. We don't believe in preemptively legislating peoples actions, because doing so is anathema to FREEDOM AND LIBERTY, which is the bedrock of our nation.

That's most of it, but there's one important fact omitted: While you may say anything you choose (within 'reason' - see Mr. Justice Holmes' quote on falsely shouting fire in a crowded theater), you are responsible for the consequences of your words. If your claims are fraudulent, be prepared for prosecution. If your words are slanderous, be prepared for prosecution.

When one is required to face the consequences of one's actions (or words), without the intervention of the nanny state arbitrarily 'protecting' the illicit, it's remarkable how well 'the system' balances itself.

[03_SHOOTER]

True enough HE.

One point of clarification, the decision in Schenck was overturned in the 1969 case of Brandenburg v Ohio (http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0395_0444_ZO.html) which brought us closer (but not quite all the way back) to the original meaning of the First Amendment in that today the only "legal" restriction is on "fighting words", meaning those words that are intended to, or likely to, incite imminent lawless action. Therefore, under Brandenburg, unless it can be shown that someone intends to cause a riot or other lawless action by engaging in false advertising, constitutionally the FTC can take their silly little rule, cover it in broken glass turn it sideways, and shove it right up their fourth point of contact.