Comments on: New FTC Rules Will Have Serious Impact on Blogs

By: james

james — Wed, 14 Oct 2009 14:32:31 +0000

Definitely one of the better posts I’ve read in a while. Thanks!

By: The Dan Rather Protection Act or how to clamp down on bloggers. | Gun Free Zone

Thu, 08 Oct 2009 03:34:19 +0000

[...] Snowflakes in Hell calls attention to the new Federal Trade Commission’s Guides Concerning the Use of Endorsements and Testimonials in Advertising. This is creepy to an insane degree. Read it with calm and you will see that the vagueness in its language sometimes brings out specific and scary targeting such as: Thus, a consumer who purchases a product with his or her own money and praises it on a personal blog or on an electronic message board will not be deemed to be providing an endorsement.21 In contrast, postings by a blogger who is paid to speak about an advertiser’s product will be covered by the Guides, regardless of whether the blogger is paid directly by the marketer itself or by a third party on behalf of the marketer…..For example, a blogger could receive merchandise from a marketer with a request to review it, but with no compensation paid other than the value of the product itself. In this situation, whether or not any positive statement the blogger posts would be deemed an “endorsement” within the meaning of the Guides would depend on, among other things, the value of that product, and on whether the blogger routinely receives such requests [...]

By: Diomed

Diomed — Thu, 08 Oct 2009 02:50:35 +0000

So is the FTC going to be hiring a few hundred recent college grads to do nothing but troll the internets looking for violations, or will they just rely on snitches?

By: Kristopher

Kristopher — Thu, 08 Oct 2009 00:24:44 +0000

Wolfwalker: Nope.

Dead-tree media folks have a right to publish anything in text they want ( short of libel or criminal conspiracy ), and not disclose any damned thing.

This is a first amendment infringement, pure and simple.

By: Bitter

Bitter — Wed, 07 Oct 2009 17:11:28 +0000

I didn’t see any formal examples of podcasts, but they did cite other new media sources such as forums. So I do believe there is a reasonable assumption that it applies to everything in new media. Though your example of Michael Bane may fall into a media exemption since he could reasonably argue that it’s an extension of his television show. Though to be honest, I’m not sure on that. It would seem the FTC considers that you as a blogger or even forum participant, you should know all of the FTC case law and rules on advertising and sponsored speech.

By: Richard

Richard — Wed, 07 Oct 2009 17:05:53 +0000

What about other “new media,” such as podcasts? For example, if Michael Bane talks about a new Ruger gun that was sent to him for evaluation…do the new rules apply?

First Amendment protections for the media should apply to -all- media. A one man operation printing leaflets or running a blog should be protected the same as a large organization like the NY Times or CBS.

By: “FTC Writes New Blog Rules” Or “The State Run Media Protection Act of 2009” « Dante's Inferno and Firing Range

Wed, 07 Oct 2009 16:24:41 +0000

[...] “FTC Writes New Blog Rules” Or “The State Run Media Protection Act of 2009” Published October 7, 2009 Uncategorized Leave a Comment By way of ex-Merchant of Death cum Fantasy Writer Extraordinaire, Larry “what round for gargoyles” Correia, we get the story of how fed.gov is trying to apply the “square peg round hole” theory in dealing with poten… [...]

By: Snowflakes in Hell » Blog Archive » Should Commerce Clause Be Top Priority?

Wed, 07 Oct 2009 14:57:23 +0000

[...] wouldn’t have as much effect on popular legislation. What got me thinking about it was the new FTC blogger regulations. If you look at the enabling legislation that creates the FTC, it’s appalling it’s even [...]

By: So the FTC is cracking down on bloggers… « Monster Hunter Nation

So the FTC is cracking down on bloggers… « Monster Hunter Nation — Wed, 07 Oct 2009 14:29:30 +0000

[...] So the FTC is cracking down on bloggers… Posted on October 7, 2009 by correia45 http://www.snowflakesinhell.com/2009/10/06/new-ftc-rules-will-have-serious-impact-on-blogs/ [...]

By: Bitter

Bitter — Wed, 07 Oct 2009 14:24:40 +0000

Hate to tell you glnts, but the media does accept freebies. Books publish review copies all the time to be sent to newspapers and other outlets that review books. Movies are screened for critics, outdoor writers are invited to try guns or visit new preserves, and FTC acknowledged this. They might not take direct compensation, but that’s not what this rule is about. The FTC even says that a review copy of a product is considered sponsorship for new media, but not for old. This hampers bloggers who are trying to actually report as well as bloggers who really just want to have a conversation with friends.

By: glnts

glnts — Wed, 07 Oct 2009 14:21:31 +0000

Legit media has had to abide by rules like this for years so you shouldn’t be surprised that it is hitting the bloggers now. A lot of the MSM (big time media) can’t accept/won’t acceipt freebies because of the compromising position it puts them into.

If you want to function like the MSM, then you need to stop taking freebies and pay for whatever it is you use/review/whatever.

By: SayUncle » Guess I’ll have to give my hats back

SayUncle » Guess I’ll have to give my hats back — Wed, 07 Oct 2009 13:22:47 +0000

[...] look at the FTC ruling and blogs. Meanwhile, Ann Althouse notes some issues with the ruling: The most absurd part of it is the way [...]

By: wolfwalker

wolfwalker — Wed, 07 Oct 2009 11:50:40 +0000

Um, folks, there ain’t nothing really new here. In essence, the new regulations say “we can’t write a simple rule that covers all cases, so we’re making this a subjective judgement call by the individual case and investigator.” If you get a friendly investigator, you’re fine. If you get an investigator who needs to make quota, or doesn’t like your blog or your attitude, or is just mad at the world that day, you’re screwed.

Which is pretty much the way it is with most federal regulations.

It is, however, somewhat painfully ironic, at least for me. For years I’ve advocated a middle road between the “no rules” anarchist-libertarians and the “have a rule for everything” nanny-staters. One of my main objections to the nanny-state mind-set is that it tries to put everything in writing and leave no gray areas. Then you get things like “three-strike” laws that jail a guy for life because he stole a pretzel from a street vendor. This rule looks to me like somebody’s conscious attempt to leave a BIG gray area … and I still don’t like it because of the obvious room for abuse. What’s an honest middle-roader to do?

By: Steve

Steve — Wed, 07 Oct 2009 10:24:37 +0000

heh heh, I did not click the link but saw that post later on another site :)

The more I read about this the more I am pissed off.

By: Nathaniel

Nathaniel — Wed, 07 Oct 2009 02:31:53 +0000

This is going to get thrown out the first time someone with balls stands up to the feds following an attempt to enforce this ridiculous nonsense.

By: Bitter

Bitter — Wed, 07 Oct 2009 01:48:32 +0000

Steve, Jeff was the second link the in post. :)

By: comatus

comatus — Wed, 07 Oct 2009 01:47:50 +0000

Linoge, did you have anyone specific in mind? Heh.

By: Steve

Steve — Wed, 07 Oct 2009 01:32:01 +0000

A professor of journalism has written about it:

http://www.buzzmachine.com/2009/10/05/ftc-regulates-our-speech/

By: Linoge

Linoge — Wed, 07 Oct 2009 00:59:55 +0000

Hm. I wonder how that works for invisible affiliate links, like Amazon has… Do you have to declare sponsorship from Amazon, from the product you are linking to, or both? :)

By: Steve

Steve — Wed, 07 Oct 2009 00:42:43 +0000

Regulation on the internet rarely works …

Are print journalists also under such rules?

If a gun blogger gets sent a gun, with ammo, for review. Does he have to then consider the “free” ammunition he used as a gift or payment? What about the use of a the gun? That would cost money if rented.

By: Sebastian

Sebastian — Tue, 06 Oct 2009 23:48:02 +0000

I think I saw you take some free swag at GBR; Better not write anything good about it, or the man will stick it to you :)

By: DirtCrashr

DirtCrashr — Tue, 06 Oct 2009 23:44:27 +0000

Nobody gives me anything about which to produce written materials or endorsements. I get nothing from my blogging but an elevated sense of self and a bunch of invisible friends. ;-)
However somebody does want to buy an old blog post and put it on their website – how’s that gonna work? It’s not a quid-pro-quo, it’s apriori work that became valued after the fact. They’re riding coattails, not me. Stuff it FTC.

By: mariner

mariner — Tue, 06 Oct 2009 21:34:48 +0000

I’m sure the courts will agree.

Just like they agreed about “Campaign Finance Reform”.

By: Caleb

Caleb — Tue, 06 Oct 2009 20:12:12 +0000

You know, there are layers and layers of this that I didn’t think about.

Say for example the Gunsite Pro Shop gave me a free magazine carrier made by Blade-Tech. Because the Gunsite pro shop gave me the mag carrier for free, does that mean that the next time I write about a BladeTech anything I have to mention that I got one for free?

Man, I’d like to stick it to the man here, but I also don’t have eleven large sitting around to defend myself from the predations of a stupid government.