Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

EU Bans Sock-Puppet Blogs

Posted by kdawson on from the named-and-shamed dept.

PhilipMarlowe9000 writes in with news of a new EU directive that will take effect in the UK at the end of this year to ban "sock-puppet" reviews or websites, part of an EU-wide overhaul of consumer laws. From the article: "Businesses that write fake blog entries or create whole wesbites purporting to be created by customers will fall foul of a European directive banning them from 'falsely representing oneself as a consumer.' From December 31, when the change becomes law in the UK, they can be named and shamed by trading standards or taken to court. The Times has learnt that the new regulations also will apply to authors who praise their own books under a fake identity on websites such as Amazon."

17 of 393 comments (clear)

  1. Before anyone says anything about free speech by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Please keep in mind that fraud is not generally protected speech, particularly when it relates to commercial speech.

    1. Re:Before anyone says anything about free speech by MillionthMonkey · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Free speech isn't free if it has "ifs, ands, or buts".

      No it isn't. This, however, is commercial speech, fraudulently pretending to be free speech, as part of a ruse to impress people. Commercial speech identifiable as such is known to suffer the trustworthiness problems typical of commercial speech. If a corporation sends its marketing department to blogspot and creates 100 blogs talking about how cool its products are, that's fraud. The company is misrepresenting itself and concealing a conflict of interest. I mean, duh. Even in the crazy United States we have laws saying you can't make ads disguised to look like newspaper articles unless you print ADVERTISEMENT at the bottom so everyone knows you're probably full of it. Free speech is not going to last very long if we use it to excuse cheap commercial hijinks.

    2. Re:Before anyone says anything about free speech by ricree · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I don't think that you can really use a slippery slope argument here. There have been limits on speech for pretty much as long as the concept of free speech has been around. While there have certainly been abuses, fraud, libel, and other limitations haven't destroyed free speech yet. As far as I can tell, this is simply a logical extension of these limitations. Furthermore, this doesn't effect the content of what people can say. It appears to mostly be a limitation on how people are allowed to represent themselves. The companies are still quite free to heap praise on their products, they just aren't allowed to lie about who they are while doing it.

    3. Re:Before anyone says anything about free speech by Simon+Garlick · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Everyone ignore the posts above by poster "iminplaya". As a registered sex offender and convicted child rapist, he doesn't deserve to be heard in this forum.

      --

      -----
      PGP Key ID 0xCB8FF658
    4. Re:Before anyone says anything about free speech by Miseph · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Your view is overly simplistic.

      You ignore the fact that corporations are not people, and as such do not (and should not) have the inalienable rights of a human being. You also assume that the right to free speech trumps all other rights (such as life, property, autonomy, etc.), which is completely untrue, not to mention unjust and far more dangerous than limits on free speech.

      Try yelling "fire" in a crowded theater and telling the theater staff that you have First Amendment Rights when they remove you from the premises and you'll find out just how little that applies to private persons on private property.

      The Right to Free Speech does not, in fact, apply to that speech which is specifically designed to be malicious, it never has, and such an idea flies in the face of it's very origins (see: Immanuel Kant). Trying to apply it to such actually weakens the idea, and perverts the intent of free speech. Fraud, slander, and incitement are all directly opposed to "free", and as such are NOT protected as free speech.

      I also wonder why so many people are convinced that specific limits on free speech are a new thing (they aren't), and that such limits make it impossible to protect speech which needs to be free (it hasn't).

      --
      Try not to take me more seriously than I take myself.
    5. Re:Before anyone says anything about free speech by jcr · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The expression of an idea does not bring harm.

      Sorry, it's not that simple. Threatening to kill someone does indeed harm the person threatened; they are dreprived of their peace of mind, and that's why we have such things as laws against verbal assault and incitement, and restraining orders that can compel a person not to communicate with the target of their malice.

      -jcr

      --
      The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
    6. Re:Before anyone says anything about free speech by nickco3 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Also, European human rights legislation only applies to us actual humans, not legal persons. Corporations claiming human rights is a feature of the US legal system.

      --
      -- Nick "Hallo this is Beel Gates, und I pronounce weendows as ... WEENdows"
    7. Re:Before anyone says anything about free speech by pureevilmatt · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Companies aren't individuals nor should they have the rights of individuals.

  2. This will end well by heinousjay · · Score: 5, Funny

    Regulating the internet usually works incredibly well. This is sure to do everything it is intended to do.

    --
    Slashdot - where whining about luck is the new way to make the world you want.
  3. Corporate personhood... by RyanFenton · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Are corporations considered legal persons in Europe in general? If not - then good on you, Europe - you have the possibility of standing up to corporations and being legally consistent in cases like this.

    Here, in order to enact a law like that, we'd have to take away the right from everyone, else have it overruled by courts.

    Ryan Fenton

    P.S. Yes, I do want to 'oppress' corporations, whenever they are in contest with the interests of most citizens.

    1. Re:Corporate personhood... by RyanFenton · · Score: 5, Funny

      Troll moderation? What the hell? Was someone out there thinking "Hey, my Mother was a corporation, you jerk!"

      Ryan Fenton

  4. Ban sock puppet politicians by syousef · · Score: 5, Funny

    I know a few politicians I consider sock puppets for other entities. Can we ban them too?

    --
    These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
  5. This is a disaster! by edwardpickman · · Score: 5, Funny

    It's going to cost thousands of corporate jobs and eliminate whole departments. What do they expect companies to do? Depend on actual positive feedback from customers?

  6. Slashdot is the best thing to happen in my life by LM741N · · Score: 5, Funny

    I just want to say that without Slashdot, I would never have made it to where I am today. Kudos for a great website.

    Sincerely,

    Captain Burritto

    1. Re:Slashdot is the best thing to happen in my life by Shadow+Wrought · · Score: 5, Funny
      Shut down the intraweb!!! You're fooling people!! We must prosecute those responsible for perpetrating this hoax!

      Very truly yours,
      Boston

      --
      If brevity is the soul of wit, then how does one explain Twitter?
  7. Burn the socks! by deek · · Score: 5, Funny

    Europe has got it right. Sites like these should be eradicated from the face of the internet. Please, think of the children!

  8. The EU's Free Speech Law by DrSkwid · · Score: 5, Informative

    "While England doesn't spell out its free speech rights as absolutely as the US"

    Au contraire :

    Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights

    FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION
                      1. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This Article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises.

                      2. The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.

    --
    There are places where the networks are not touching,and there are places where they are-Boeing's Lori Gunter