FTC says: Declare!

[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.

[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.

[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.