"US regulators will for the first time crack down on bloggers who fail to disclose fees or freebies they get from companies for reviewing products. The Federal Trade Commission, decided to update its nearly 30 year old guidelines to clarify the law for the vast world of blogging. Offenders could face eventual fines of up to $11,000 (GBP 6,900) per violation."
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:2005-07-06
Business speech is not and never has been protected. It's considered not a form of free speech. If you're trying to sell a product, you can't just say anything and claim 1st amendment protection.
But the part about anonymous bloggers is definitely a problem.
Member since:2006-03-03
"Business speech is not and never has been protected. It's considered not a form of free speech. If you're trying to sell a product, you can't just say anything and claim 1st amendment protection."
So I can say "This is GREAT product" (subjective taste) but not "This is SHIT product" (subjective taste either) ? I bet the reader can make up his/her mind about the opinion of the reviewer, doesn't s/he ?
Kochise
Member since:2005-07-06
It take 5 seconds to track an IP to an ISP to the owner of an internet account. Or they could be coming from the company themself with the list of people who got paid and they where sued for false advertising and in order for the court to diminish their punishment ( fines , jail times , community service ) they rat out the name of the blogger they sent equipment to and paid them ( they track paypal or bank account or credit system ) for reviews ... As long as you mark it as a paid review your in the clear btw.
Also in the USofA, Free speech and laws don't apply to anonymous who don't use their real names. Your considered one step from terrorist.
Free Speech is about real people using there real name to make a statements and not fear any repercussion for it. It's not about anonymous using pseudonym to insult , libel and slander others without any consequences.
Member since:2009-02-19
Not necessarily; I don't know if it matters, but they're not actually restricting what can be said in the blog, they're just requiring that you have to disclose any potential influences or conflicts of interest. You can still claim that your iPhone cures cancer, you just have to disclose that Apple is paying you $150,000. That might be the difference between the law just being "kinda squirrely" and it actually posing a constitutionality issue.
Member since:2006-07-12
Member since:
2005-11-10
This is completely stupid. How are you they going to enforce this rule when many people online are anonymous or use pseudonyms? Also, isn't this a restriction on free speech?