FTC says: Declare!

[RawAlex]

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/FTC-Bl....html?x=0&.v=2

What do you think?

[gonzo]

Originally Posted by RawAlex

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/FTC-Bl....html?x=0&.v=2

What do you think?

The should be going after the cross sales monkeys that cling on to the business like Topbucks.

No one prechecked cross sale but 2!
One for Realitycash and one for Gigacash!
Another demonstration by Topbucks,Playboy and Xbiz!

[EmporerEJ]

Yea, once again, the Government is getting into things they shouldn't be.
How stupid is someone that reads a "blog" and doesn't realize it's an ad?

They Deserve to buy the product. I don't need the nanny state to watch out for me.

This represents a chilling of free speech. It will be challenged, and it will be struck down.
I really can't understand this concept that somehow commercial speech doesn't deserve the same protections as non-commercial speech. Everybody just thinks it's "Ok" somehow to limit commercial speech. I don't recall that part of the Constitution. Maybe someone could show me?

[pornlaw]

Originally Posted by EmporerEJ

Everybody just thinks it's "Ok" somehow to limit commercial speech. I don't recall that part of the Constitution. Maybe someone could show me?

Here ya go....

http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/.../overview.aspx

[EmporerEJ]

Originally Posted by pornlaw

Here ya go....

http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/.../overview.aspx

Yea, that was kinda my point........
It is a creature of the "modern era." Although I thought it only dated back to the 70's...ish. But according to your reference, it goes back to WWII.

As we reflect on the founding of the country, it's certain this was NOT the intention of the founding fathers.

Entrepreneurs all, the country was steeped in "commercial" matters and free speech......
Tea party....(tax stamps) (Get the pun there...."steeped" and Tea? :-)

Ben Franklin, my personal favorite founding father, was an Entrepreneur extraordinaire.

When did it become "ok" for everything commercial to somehow be "bad" or "dirty?"

[softball]

Originally Posted by EmporerEJ

Yea, that was kinda my point........
It is a creature of the "modern era." Although I thought it only dated back to the 70's...ish. But according to your reference, it goes back to WWII.

As we reflect on the founding of the country, it's certain this was NOT the intention of the founding fathers.

Entrepreneurs all, the country was steeped in "commercial" matters and free speech......
Tea party....(tax stamps) (Get the pun there...."steeped" and Tea? :-)

Ben Franklin, my personal favorite founding father, was an Entrepreneur extraordinaire.

When did it become "ok" for everything commercial to somehow be "bad" or "dirty?"

How do you feel about honest labeling of food that you buy? Do you think that producers should be required to tell you what it is you are eating.....honestly? Or do you think they have the right to mislead you with fine print and omission and their right to this is protected by the first amendment?
Its all fine and fun until someone gets hurt. I think everyone has the right to know what they are purchasing. If it is hidden or misleading then it is scammy and should be illegal.

[EmporerEJ]

Originally Posted by rhetorical

How do you feel about honest labeling of food that you buy? Do you think that producers should be required to tell you what it is you are eating.....honestly? Or do you think they have the right to mislead you with fine print and omission and their right to this is protected by the first amendment?
Its all fine and fun until someone gets hurt. I think everyone has the right to know what they are purchasing. If it is hidden or misleading then it is scammy and should be illegal.

And I think that's a different discussion.
What we're talking about here is the US constitutional right to free expression.

[miz_wright]

I...

Maybe I'm missing something, but when I see an ad on telly that features a testimonial, there's a notation somewhere that it's a paid testimonial, or an actor reading a customer letter or similar. This is merely an extension of that - I don't trust a restaurant review if I know s/he got comped for the meal, and I don't trust someone telling me this vaccuum is better than that one if they got one for free from the company.

Sure you could say caveat emptor, but then the impetus to use testimonials and the power behind them is lost.

I kinda feel like saying "Hey, so I am reviewing this nail polish, and it's only fair you should know that I bought these handy ones out of pocket, but these ones were given to me to review by the company" is acceptable. My investment analyst is compelled to disclose that s/he was compensated for pimping a product, and so is Brooke Shields, when she tells me I can have longer, stronger lashes if I ask my doctor.

So the mom down the street doesn't get a pass just 'cos the medium is different. Sorry. This is just getting caught up to the tech.

[EmporerEJ]

Originally Posted by LizAEBN

I...

Maybe I'm missing something, but when I see an ad on telly that features a testimonial, there's a notation somewhere that it's a paid testimonial, or an actor reading a customer letter or similar. This is merely an extension of that - I don't trust a restaurant review if I know s/he got comped for the meal, and I don't trust someone telling me this vaccuum is better than that one if they got one for free from the company.

Sure you could say caveat emptor, but then the impetus to use testimonials and the power behind them is lost.

I kinda feel like saying "Hey, so I am reviewing this nail polish, and it's only fair you should know that I bought these handy ones out of pocket, but these ones were given to me to review by the company" is acceptable. My investment analyst is compelled to disclose that s/he was compensated for pimping a product, and so is Brooke Shields, when she tells me I can have longer, stronger lashes if I ask my doctor.

So the mom down the street doesn't get a pass just 'cos the medium is different. Sorry. This is just getting caught up to the tech.

What a load of nonsense.
OF COURSE it's someone's opinion. Of COURSE they are trying to sell you something. That's the point. And the entire definition and power of a "testimonial" is whether or not you believe the person's reputation sellign it to you. If you're stupid enough to believe the late night girl's suggestion that her pill will make you "larger," (insinuating your penis, but never saying that,) then damn right; buyer beware. Because you're stupid, and should be parted from your money. And if you are basing your "opinion" on whether the reviewer got comped for the meal, then you don't trust them anyhow. A "legit" reviewer would give you their honest opinion either way. You want the "truth police" watching the restaurant reviewers now? Tell me, how do you plan on enforcing that? "Your honor, that there reviewer told me it was a good meal, and I lost my $20.00, 'cause he lied. Now reward me my $20.00, and my lawyer his $20,000.00 in fees and legal expenses. We gotta show these reviewers they have to disclose their sources of food! Send a message your honor!

Geeez. Take some responsibility for your own decisions.

Again, I don't need the nanny state protecting me.
Making a blogger disclose she was given the nail polish......by law?
Are you kidding me? Shouldn't that same "disclosure" law require the politicians disclose they are all full of shit, and have no intention of doing any of the things they say they will? Of course not. There is a mechanism to control it, just like the free market. Politician lies...he doesn't get re-elected. Nail polish doesn't work, you don't buy anymore. the free market DOES work. Food no good? Reviewer "lie?" (according to you, 'cause maybe THEY really did like it) Well then, that reviewer will get fired by the paper, 'cause no one will read their reviews anymore.

ALL speech is someone's "opinion."

[miz_wright]

Originally Posted by EmporerEJ

What a load of nonsense.
OF COURSE it's someone's opinion. Of COURSE they are trying to sell you something. That's the point. And the entire definition and power of a "testimonial" is whether or not you believe the person's reputation sellign it to you. If you're stupid enough to believe the late night girl's suggestion that her pill will make you "larger," (insinuating your penis, but never saying that,) then damn right; buyer beware. Because you're stupid, and should be parted from your money. And if you are basing your "opinion" on whether the reviewer got comped for the meal, then you don't trust them anyhow. A "legit" reviewer would give you their honest opinion either way. You want the "truth police" watching the restaurant reviewers now? Tell me, how do you plan on enforcing that? "Your honor, that there reviewer told me it was a good meal, and I lost my $20.00, 'cause he lied. Now reward me my $20.00, and my lawyer his $20,000.00 in fees and legal expenses. We gotta show these reviewers they have to disclose their sources of food! Send a message your honor!

Geeez. Take some responsibility for your own decisions.

Again, I don't need the nanny state protecting me.
Making a blogger disclose she was given the nail polish......by law?
Are you kidding me? Shouldn't that same "disclosure" law require the politicians disclose they are all full of shit, and have no intention of doing any of the things they say they will? Of course not. There is a mechanism to control it, just like the free market. Politician lies...he doesn't get re-elected. Nail polish doesn't work, you don't buy anymore. the free market DOES work. Food no good? Reviewer "lie?" (according to you, 'cause maybe THEY really did like it) Well then, that reviewer will get fired by the paper, 'cause no one will read their reviews anymore.

ALL speech is someone's "opinion."

You know what?

I'm actually not a fan of being protected by jackshit either.

But my point is that this is already in existence in all other media. Chill out, 'cos it's not any more of an infringement than any other notification - again, it's the law as it's stood being applied to new media.

You may think the whole world's beneath you, but it is human nature to want to trust what's being said. We all get that you're completely superior to everyone, but there's no need for a personal attack. 'Cos I'm not really sure what I did to deserve that.

[RawAlex]

Here is possibly the best possible example:

Rumors have swirled that celeb bloggers like Perez Hilton receive payouts from agents, shows, and marketing companies to keep certain z-listers in the game. Example being the "reality" show The Hills, which pretty much doesn't show up on the radar anywhere else, but gets wall to wall coverage on Perez's blog.

Perez has even started his own record label, and signed his first artist (a dopey singer from france). The he interviews the guy himself, gets his "interview" picked up by one of the teen music magazines, and then goes on his blog and says "teens go wild over new singing sensation". Shill doesn't even start to cover how this goes.

So what do you see on Perez pretty much daily? Lady Gaga, The Hills, Miley Cyrus.. it's predictable. You have to wonder if one or more of those is paying for the attention.

[EmporerEJ]

Originally Posted by LizAEBN

You know what?

I'm actually not a fan of being protected by jackshit either.

But my point is that this is already in existence in all other media. Chill out, 'cos it's not any more of an infringement than any other notification - again, it's the law as it's stood being applied to new media.

You may think the whole world's beneath you, but it is human nature to want to trust what's being said. We all get that you're completely superior to everyone, but there's no need for a personal attack. 'Cos I'm not really sure what I did to deserve that.

Where did that come from?
I'm not attacking you. And if you read that into it from what I said, I'm sorry, you mis-understood. I must have expressed myself poorly, by not separating you from the concept under discussion. It was not my intention.

But I feel VERY strongly about this "nanny state" concept, and "because it's the same in other areas" doesn't make it OK with me. It juts makes those examples wrong, as well. The way things become "just like those," is the people standing guard at the civil liberties of that industry didn't stand up and say "NO," when the time came.

Well, it's here now, and I say "NO." This far, and no farther.

[EmporerEJ]

Originally Posted by RawAlex

Here is possibly the best possible example:

Rumors have swirled that celeb bloggers like Perez Hilton receive payouts from agents, shows, and marketing companies to keep certain z-listers in the game. Example being the "reality" show The Hills, which pretty much doesn't show up on the radar anywhere else, but gets wall to wall coverage on Perez's blog.

Perez has even started his own record label, and signed his first artist (a dopey singer from france). The he interviews the guy himself, gets his "interview" picked up by one of the teen music magazines, and then goes on his blog and says "teens go wild over new singing sensation". Shill doesn't even start to cover how this goes.

So what do you see on Perez pretty much daily? Lady Gaga, The Hills, Miley Cyrus.. it's predictable. You have to wonder if one or more of those is paying for the attention.

Exactly, and what mechanism are you going to use to "police" that? Office of the public truth? There was this guy named MacCarthy, once........

[tony404]

Originally Posted by EmporerEJ

Yea, once again, the Government is getting into things they shouldn't be.
How stupid is someone that reads a "blog" and doesn't realize it's an ad?

Your kidding right? lol People are strange alot of people if its in print or on a computer screen its true. I think a disclaimer is not a bad thing. Its not a freedom of speech thing its letting someone knows its an ad.

[EmporerEJ]

Originally Posted by tony404

Your kidding right? lol People are strange alot of people if its in print or on a computer screen its true. I think a disclaimer is not a bad thing. Its not a freedom of speech thing its letting someone knows its an ad.

Yea, It IS a freedom of speech thing.
As soon as you REQUIRE me to put that "disclaimer" on it.
THAT, is when you cross the line.
Sure, it's a good idea, wonderful idea....do it all you want VOLUNTARILY.
Those people are stupid, and shouldn't be able to vote, either, but then I don't make the rules.

Why is the requirement on the "Speech?"
Why isn't the requirement on the idiot reading the speech?

How about this instead......before you buy a computer, and are allowed to hook it up to the internet, (or buy a newspaper, TV, or radio for that matter, ) you have to sign a paper that says "I am not an idiot and I realize that everything I read isn't "true" by the government's "office of truth" and I won't take it literally and hurt myself because I read something that told me to do it.

How does that sound?
Are you "as Ok" with that?

I didn't expect to find this much apathy in the adult industry.

[RawAlex]

Originally Posted by EmporerEJ

Exactly, and what mechanism are you going to use to "police" that? Office of the public truth? There was this guy named MacCarthy, once........

Sometimes I think you miss it entirely.

How does the FTC catch anyone doing anything? Answer that, and you have your own answer.

[miz_wright]

Originally Posted by EmporerEJ

Where did that come from?
I'm not attacking you. And if you read that into it from what I said, I'm sorry, you mis-understood. I must have expressed myself poorly, by not separating you from the concept under discussion. It was not my intention.

But I feel VERY strongly about this "nanny state" concept, and "because it's the same in other areas" doesn't make it OK with me. It juts makes those examples wrong, as well. The way things become "just like those," is the people standing guard at the civil liberties of that industry didn't stand up and say "NO," when the time came.

Well, it's here now, and I say "NO." This far, and no farther.

It's tough in the written word when using the word "you" and exclamatory remarks about stupidity to distance oneself. One never is quite sure if it's the personal "you" or the generic grouping "you" iteration.

I think it's bone fucking stupid, as a whole, that many of the regulatory statutes that exist, do. I think it's dumb that I can't go to a gun range and practice shooting in a position I'm most likely to use. I think it's asinine that I have to show my ID to go to a movie or certain stores.

However, in this particular case, I don't see it as a separate ruling but as a continuation of existing guidelines.

I have concerns about the slippery slope of limiting freedom of expression, as I have repeatedly expressed elsewhere on this very same board. I have concerns about Max and Stagliano's cases creating an artificial stopping place that can easily be pushed back. I've made several comments discussing personal preference and comfort versus what is/ should be allowed under free speech.

I think arguing that full disclosure as a legal norm is a limiting factor is a straw man of an argument. I get your concerns about limits to speech, but I think this particular ruling is not one that should be a worry.

[EmporerEJ]

Originally Posted by LizAEBN

It's tough in the written word when using the word "you" and exclamatory remarks about stupidity to distance oneself. One never is quite sure if it's the personal "you" or the generic grouping "you" iteration.

I think it's bone fucking stupid, as a whole, that many of the regulatory statutes that exist, do. I think it's dumb that I can't go to a gun range and practice shooting in a position I'm most likely to use. I think it's asinine that I have to show my ID to go to a movie or certain stores.

However, in this particular case, I don't see it as a separate ruling but as a continuation of existing guidelines.

I have concerns about the slippery slope of limiting freedom of expression, as I have repeatedly expressed elsewhere on this very same board. I have concerns about Max and Stagliano's cases creating an artificial stopping place that can easily be pushed back. I've made several comments discussing personal preference and comfort versus what is/ should be allowed under free speech.

I think arguing that full disclosure as a legal norm is a limiting factor is a straw man of an argument. I get your concerns about limits to speech, but I think this particular ruling is not one that should be a worry.

Yes, any language that uses "you, you, and you" as the three parts to mean very separate things is a poor means of communication.

For future reference, assume I'm speaking in the third person, as I rarely make personal attacks. If I'm attacking you personally, I'll be sure and let you know.
:-)

As for the rest...we'll simply have to disagree. I do think it's important, as I look ahead to that time, sometime in the future, when the FBI knocks on my door. This is one m,ore tool in their box to "charge stack" in an attempt to convict me of something....anything.

[DannyCox]

I love the way so many people whine about "Protectionism" until they need it!

Just like Health Care...a good friend of mine in Florida was anti-government health care for many years, and also a good Republican. 6 months ago, he lost his job and his health care. Guess what his stance on a public option is now??

If something is endorsed, regardless of the media, that should be noted. It is a form of advertising, and needs be be shown as such.

This isn't a "Freedom Of Speech" thing, nor a political thing in any way. It's about fraud and keeping people properly informed. Yes, there are quite a few people with lower intelligence, and they are the ones that need to be protected from these fraudsters. A good byproduct is that the rest of us are properly informed too! .

[RawAlex]

Originally Posted by DannyCox

I love the way so many people whine about "Protectionism" until they need it!

Just like Health Care...a good friend of mine in Florida was anti-government health care for many years, and also a good Republican. 6 months ago, he lost his job and his health care. Guess what his stance on a public option is now??

If something is endorsed, regardless of the media, that should be noted. It is a form of advertising, and needs be be shown as such.

This isn't a "Freedom Of Speech" thing, nor a political thing in any way. It's about fraud and keeping people properly informed. Yes, there are quite a few people with lower intelligence, and they are the ones that need to be protected from these fraudsters. A good byproduct is that the rest of us are properly informed too! .

Danny, you are so Canadian and practical at times!

[tony404]

Originally Posted by DannyCox

I love the way so many people whine about "Protectionism" until they need it!

Just like Health Care...a good friend of mine in Florida was anti-government health care for many years, and also a good Republican. 6 months ago, he lost his job and his health care. Guess what his stance on a public option is now??

If something is endorsed, regardless of the media, that should be noted. It is a form of advertising, and needs be be shown as such.

This isn't a "Freedom Of Speech" thing, nor a political thing in any way. It's about fraud and keeping people properly informed. Yes, there are quite a few people with lower intelligence, and they are the ones that need to be protected from these fraudsters. A good byproduct is that the rest of us are properly informed too! .

well said

[EmporerEJ]

Originally Posted by DannyCox

I love the way so many people whine about "Protectionism" until they need it!

Just like Health Care...a good friend of mine in Florida was anti-government health care for many years, and also a good Republican. 6 months ago, he lost his job and his health care. Guess what his stance on a public option is now??

If something is endorsed, regardless of the media, that should be noted. It is a form of advertising, and needs be be shown as such.

This isn't a "Freedom Of Speech" thing, nor a political thing in any way. It's about fraud and keeping people properly informed. Yes, there are quite a few people with lower intelligence, and they are the ones that need to be protected from these fraudsters. A good byproduct is that the rest of us are properly informed too! .

Well, a health care conversation is a whole different banana.

Let's not confuse the issue. apples are apples, and bananas are are not oranges.

I'm talking about the government doing the thinking for me.
And who the hell made them so smart all of the sudden? My life by committee? I don't think so. No thanks.

Without a common frame of reference, it's difficult to discuss the concept.

I'll echo an above: "Danny, you're so Canadian." And I'll leave it at that.

[EmporerEJ]

And now the reality comes out.
Everybody got it wrong.

[miz_wright]

Originally Posted by EmporerEJ

And now the reality comes out.
Everybody got it wrong.

Link, please?

[RawAlex]

Originally Posted by EmporerEJ

And now the reality comes out.
Everybody got it wrong.

Hey! We ain't mind readers - certainly not at this distance. link please!

[EmporerEJ]

Originally Posted by LizAEBN

Link, please?

OOOps......sorry. Forgot:

http://business.avn.com/articles/36487.html