3 ms·

Where does it say you can't shout "fire" in a crowded theatre? Where does it say you can't advertise your new wonder drug by claiming it cures cancer and has n

by evgen 17y ago

Where does it say you can't shout "fire" in a crowded theatre? Where does it say you can't advertise your new wonder drug by claiming it cures cancer and has no side-effects? Free speech is not an absolute right, and commercial speech is the most regulated type of speech act; when you take a payment for what you say then you are obligated to disclose this fact. If bloggers want to be treated like real, grown-up journalists then they have to start living by the same rules that these journalists live by.

Zak 17y ago
In the first case, the speech becomes an action in the same way that politely requesting that a bank teller give you all the money in the bank or you'll set off a bomb is an action. In the second case, you're defrauding people and endangering their lives, but it's not the speech that's regulated; it's the selling. There's no law that says I can't publish an article saying that eating a pound of carrots a day will cure cancer. Of course, I do think professional bloggers should hold themselves to standards of journalistic ethics, possibly even forming an organization that gives out certifications.
jerf 17y ago
"real, grown-up journalists" Where does the rule say anything about "journalist"? The rule appears to apply to anybody who says anything on Facebook to their friends. It appears to apply if you got a free ticket in your cereal box for a movie, then talk about it on Twitter. At all. $11,000 if you don't "disclose" in an unspecified manner. It appears to be incredibly broad. Even in the journalism case I consider it dubious, but you seem to be doing the same thing the government is, assuming that all Internet traffic is "journalism" and must be regulated as such. That's not even remotely true. It is as true as saying all spoken words should be regulated as journalism, for pretty much the same reasons; sure, some vanishing fraction of spoken words are journalism but trying to regulate it all as if it were is an enormous category error.
- evgen 17y ago
  If bloggers and twitterers want to hide behind shield laws that protect journalists then they get all of the baggage that comes with that label. They don't get to decide that they are journalists one day (when they want the protection that comes from that label) and are not journalists on the next (when they want to chat up the movie they just saw for free without mentioning that they were paid to do so.) I would be more than happy to proclaim that nothing mentioned on the internet is journalism unless it came from someone that would have been classified as such before the internet came into existence, but I think that a vocal minority would bitch and moan about such a distinction. The internet's chattering classes created this problem in the first place by proclaiming blogging to be journalism and worthy of the protections provided to people working in this field and I am enjoying the prospect of watching them being forced to live up to the responsibilities that come with these rights.
  - jerf 17y ago
    You seem to have it out for "bloggers". That's a class distinction so worthless I'd say you should discard it; it's just people, talking, as silly a classification as "phoners". You want to talk entirely about journalism, then go pressure the rule makers to limit this to journalism. (The fact that you can't work out a definition of journalism, which you allude to, is your problem as someone who wants to regulate it, not mine. I'm underwhelmed by the need for this law even in old media.) Meanwhile, a Facebook user who doesn't give a shit about whether you consider them a "blogger" and wouldn't know what an "A-list" was if you hit them with it, and ultimately isn't worth your derision for the mere fact that someone somewhere thinks it should be called "blogging" instead of just "talking", is going to incur liabilities for a crime they have no reason to believe is a crime. Again, this law isn't limiting itself to "journalism" anywhere that I can see. (I say "liability" because clearly the government is not going to be able to perfectly enforce this, but I consider a poorly-enforced bad law worse than a well-enforced one; a democracy has ways of dealing with the latter.) Letting someone split your world into "bloggers" and "nonbloggers" is a terrible move. It's just people, talking. Some use the phone, some talk over the air, some post comments on Hacker News. There isn't a separate division of people called "bloggers" that are some sort of separate species that should have special restrictions placed on them. It's just a power ploy by people who want you to let them impose their power trip on just folk.
- credo 17y ago
  >>The rule appears to apply to anybody who says anything on Facebook to their friends. No, it doesn't apply to anyone who isn't getting paid by the company whose products they review. If you're getting paid to review a product on your facebook page, disclose the fact that you're getting paid. If not, there is nothing to disclose
  - jerf 17y ago
    Yes, if you selectively quote people, it becomes very easy to counter their arguments. The next sentence after that wasn't for decoration.
anamax 17y ago
> If bloggers want to be treated like real, grown-up journalists then they have to start living by the same rules that these journalists live by. And what rule would that be? Journalists aren't required by law to disclose that they've been paid for reporting something. In fact, they seem to think that the first amendment protects their right to do so. In other news, journalists also believe that they have a right to report falsehoods. There's a small exception if they report falsely and maliciously on a private person, but even that doesn't apply to public people and malice is almost impossible to prove.
anamax 17y ago
> If bloggers want to be treated like real, grown-up journalists then they have to start living by the same rules that these journalists live by. Let's see what an actual journalist says about all this. http://www.buzzmachine.com/2009/10/05/ftc-regulates-our-speech/ http://www.buzzmachine.com/2009/10/05/ftc-regulates-our-spee... > when you take a payment for what you say then you are obligated to disclose this fact. Oh really? Or rather, nope, wrong again. As Jarvis points out "The FTC also concedes that it treats critics at publications differently less stringently than bloggers. Don’t they realize that people on travel and gadget and food publications get freebies all the time. I’ve long believed that ethics alone should compel them to disclose. But the FTC doesn’t." Jarvis is an interesting guy. He's started publications that became large. He's "committed journalism" across a wide range. He's currently a journalism professor among other things. In short, he's actually a "real, grown-up journalist."

by evgen 17y ago

Zak 17y ago

In the first case, the speech becomes an action in the same way that politely requesting that a bank teller give you all the money in the bank or you'll set off a bomb is an action. In the second case, you're defrauding people and endangering their lives, but it's not the speech that's regulated; it's the selling. There's no law that says I can't publish an article saying that eating a pound of carrots a day will cure cancer. Of course, I do think professional bloggers should hold themselves to standards of journalistic ethics, possibly even forming an organization that gives out certifications.

jerf 17y ago

"real, grown-up journalists" Where does the rule say anything about "journalist"? The rule appears to apply to anybody who says anything on Facebook to their friends. It appears to apply if you got a free ticket in your cereal box for a movie, then talk about it on Twitter. At all. $11,000 if you don't "disclose" in an unspecified manner. It appears to be incredibly broad. Even in the journalism case I consider it dubious, but you seem to be doing the same thing the government is, assuming that all Internet traffic is "journalism" and must be regulated as such. That's not even remotely true. It is as true as saying all spoken words should be regulated as journalism, for pretty much the same reasons; sure, some vanishing fraction of spoken words are journalism but trying to regulate it all as if it were is an enormous category error.

evgen 17y ago
If bloggers and twitterers want to hide behind shield laws that protect journalists then they get all of the baggage that comes with that label. They don't get to decide that they are journalists one day (when they want the protection that comes from that label) and are not journalists on the next (when they want to chat up the movie they just saw for free without mentioning that they were paid to do so.) I would be more than happy to proclaim that nothing mentioned on the internet is journalism unless it came from someone that would have been classified as such before the internet came into existence, but I think that a vocal minority would bitch and moan about such a distinction. The internet's chattering classes created this problem in the first place by proclaiming blogging to be journalism and worthy of the protections provided to people working in this field and I am enjoying the prospect of watching them being forced to live up to the responsibilities that come with these rights.
- jerf 17y ago
  You seem to have it out for "bloggers". That's a class distinction so worthless I'd say you should discard it; it's just people, talking, as silly a classification as "phoners". You want to talk entirely about journalism, then go pressure the rule makers to limit this to journalism. (The fact that you can't work out a definition of journalism, which you allude to, is your problem as someone who wants to regulate it, not mine. I'm underwhelmed by the need for this law even in old media.) Meanwhile, a Facebook user who doesn't give a shit about whether you consider them a "blogger" and wouldn't know what an "A-list" was if you hit them with it, and ultimately isn't worth your derision for the mere fact that someone somewhere thinks it should be called "blogging" instead of just "talking", is going to incur liabilities for a crime they have no reason to believe is a crime. Again, this law isn't limiting itself to "journalism" anywhere that I can see. (I say "liability" because clearly the government is not going to be able to perfectly enforce this, but I consider a poorly-enforced bad law worse than a well-enforced one; a democracy has ways of dealing with the latter.) Letting someone split your world into "bloggers" and "nonbloggers" is a terrible move. It's just people, talking. Some use the phone, some talk over the air, some post comments on Hacker News. There isn't a separate division of people called "bloggers" that are some sort of separate species that should have special restrictions placed on them. It's just a power ploy by people who want you to let them impose their power trip on just folk.
credo 17y ago
>>The rule appears to apply to anybody who says anything on Facebook to their friends. No, it doesn't apply to anyone who isn't getting paid by the company whose products they review. If you're getting paid to review a product on your facebook page, disclose the fact that you're getting paid. If not, there is nothing to disclose
- jerf 17y ago
  Yes, if you selectively quote people, it becomes very easy to counter their arguments. The next sentence after that wasn't for decoration.

anamax 17y ago

> If bloggers want to be treated like real, grown-up journalists then they have to start living by the same rules that these journalists live by. And what rule would that be? Journalists aren't required by law to disclose that they've been paid for reporting something. In fact, they seem to think that the first amendment protects their right to do so. In other news, journalists also believe that they have a right to report falsehoods. There's a small exception if they report falsely and maliciously on a private person, but even that doesn't apply to public people and malice is almost impossible to prove.

anamax 17y ago

> If bloggers want to be treated like real, grown-up journalists then they have to start living by the same rules that these journalists live by. Let's see what an actual journalist says about all this. http://www.buzzmachine.com/2009/10/05/ftc-regulates-our-speech/ http://www.buzzmachine.com/2009/10/05/ftc-regulates-our-spee... > when you take a payment for what you say then you are obligated to disclose this fact. Oh really? Or rather, nope, wrong again. As Jarvis points out "The FTC also concedes that it treats critics at publications differently less stringently than bloggers. Don’t they realize that people on travel and gadget and food publications get freebies all the time. I’ve long believed that ethics alone should compel them to disclose. But the FTC doesn’t." Jarvis is an interesting guy. He's started publications that became large. He's "committed journalism" across a wide range. He's currently a journalism professor among other things. In short, he's actually a "real, grown-up journalist."