Slashdot Mirror
Telco Company Claims Freedom of Speech Includes Misleading Ads
An anonymous reader writes "Rogers Telecommunications is claiming that a ruling by Canada's Competition Bureau violates Rogers' freedom of speech. The company is in court over a 2010 ad campaign where it claimed that its discount brand 'Chatr' was more reliable and suffered fewer dropped calls than the competition. The Competition Bureau found 'no discernible difference in dropped-call rates between Rogers/Chatr and new entrants' and began legal proceedings against Rogers for violating Canada's Competition Act. The Bureau is seeking a $10 million (CDN) fine, an end to the ad campaign, and for Rogers to issue a corrective notice."
I realize Rogers is a Canadian company, so the parallels aren't quite right, but how do the Americans feel this would have played out in the States given Citizens United?
If they win, the Canadian government should sue them for fraud and put they're lying asses out of business.
You can say anything you want. Just have the balls to suffer the consequences. That's why I don't post unpopular opinions anonymously.
Upward mobility is a slippery slope - the higher you climb the more you show your ass.
I thought the founding of Chatr, the 2nd subsidiary of Rogers, located only in major metropolises where Wind Mobile & Mobilicity operated was an anti-competitive "crime".
They'd had years of operation prior in which they could've set up such a company, or better yet offered better prices, but no - wait until there's some real competition then try to steal their potential customers (I say steal because they noticeably did not use the Rogers name as so many people are / were disgusted with them and looking for someone else to do business with).
Anyway, fuck Rogers, as soon as 35.5 months of my 36 month contract were up, I ported to Wind (Rogers tried to charge me early termination even though I was paying for that 36th month - I refused to pay).
Now I get unlimited North America wide talk, unlimited global SMS, voice mail, call display, conference calling, and unlimited internet (throttled after 5 Gb/m) with tethering ... for $40/m. Yeah, fuck you Rogers. (And no, I have no affiliation with Wind other than customer.)
... fried chicken and french fries are now health food and the Pill can prevent STDs.
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
Greetings and Salutations;
I have to point out that "freedom of speech" is not absolute. It does not absolve the speaker from having to take responsibility for their words, nor, is it license to lie without consequences. This has been ruled upon a number of times by the Supreme Court here in the US. I have to say that this is one area where I agree with the Justices (although there are plenty of other areas where we disagree). The way that truth in advertising has become as rare as an Emu these days is a terrible thing and should not be tolerated. If your marketing people are so incompetent that lying about one's competition is the only way they can find a way to show that your company is a better choice, either you need to hire better people, or, admit that they have a point, and, shut down your company, since it obviously is worthless.
Pleasant dreams.
Dave Mundt
YAB - http://blog.beemandave.com/
"Telco" means TELephone COmpany, so the headline starts, "Telephone Company Company...". At least the summary doesn't mention "ATM machines" or "PIN numbers". Is it just me, or has the quality of writing on /. fallen off a cliff lately?
(Posting AC because I'm at work and I don't log into websites from work...)
Dear Rogers, Canada doesn't have Freedom of Speech. That's an American thing (one of the things that I think America got right where Canada got wrong). Using "freedom of speech" as your defence for lying shows you're not only liars, but you're stupid too. Enjoy your $10 million fine.
in that a person can lie, and this is protected speech
so maybe we need to more forcefully commit to the notion that a corporation is NOT a person and does NOT deserve the same protections
in the USA, anonymous trolls lying and making shit up is analogous to corporations and rich people committing secret soft money to untraceable political actions. when will we have our first scandal where Chinese money tinkers with American politics in this way? so why exactly is it allowed that rich people and corporations can influence our politics anonymously, without have to disclose the sources and expenditures?
secret corporate cash is the greatest threat to the health of our democracies
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
This has zero to do with Citizens United, and you're right: not only are the parallels not "quite right": they're utterly wrong.
That said, the concept of "corporate personhood" in the US isn't a new construct, and didn't start with Citizens United. US case law has treated corporations as "persons" for purposes of suing and being sued since the 1800s. Trustees of Dartmouth College v. Woodward, 17 U.S. 518 (1819) recognized corporations as having the same rights as natural persons to contract and to enforce contracts.
Given the principles of free speech, I am curious, though:
How would you propose certain speech be defined as "political" or supporting a candidate or campaign?
Can a business buy 30 seconds of dead air on television?
How about a person reading the introductory paragraphs of Moby Dick?
What about an ad promoting privatized healthcare?
An ad saying, "Tell [insert elected official here] you disagree with X?
Would there be some kind of a board of arbiters which decides what and what doesn't constitute political speech? What speech would "win"? Only that which someone personally agrees with? Free speech is free speech — warts and all.
Not surprised that an article about Canadian law and a Canadian corporation immediately turned to something as unrelated as Citizens United corporate personhood in the US
Yeah, we sure want mister inverse-Robin hood in power do we ?
"Turns out Soptic’s wife still had her own insurance after he lost his job. She stopped working as a result of an accident:"
Is there a hospital in the United States that turns away a patient. No, it is against the law. So we have on the surface one Pinocchio; the second Pinocchio is they did not lose their insurance due to the plant closing, she still had hers. The third Pinocchio is the time frame of Mitt leaving the company seven years before her cancer was diagnosed. The fourth Pinocchio is no disclosure that the union was responsible for the plant closing. They were asked to take cut-backs in benefits and pensions and refused that made the company costs too heavy to carry and would extend their loses. The fifth Pinocchio may be legal, Burton was a spokesman for Obama until a short time ago. the campaign cannot coordinate with the PAC but, only a short time ago (weeks) I saw Burton on TV acting as a surrogate speaker as has Gibbs. If there is daylight between Burton, Gibbs Axelgrease and Obama it is as thin as Obama's resume.
These spurious attacks are obvious to the point of being slanderous, of what value is winning an election if you can't lead? So the biggest Pinocchio of all is the Obama declaration that he is president of all of Americans. How long can the media keep kissing Obama's butt and be perceived as having value?
Hmmm, if Rogers could rebrand themselves in such a way at to make their ads attacks on those evil white European males, they could get away with saying anything.
Anyone complains they could take it to the Human Rights Commission.
They don't have any freedom of speech rights specified in their constitution. Only the Americans have that. Everybody else's all say, "Void where prohibited by law".
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
In most countries, including the US and Canada, the freedom of speech is declared by law and convention as a right possessed by "man", "every citizen" or "the people". There is no mention of corporations.
That statement seems true, unless you are claiming he never lost his health benefits or lost them prior to the steel plant closing. Last I checked 2003 is after 2001. So true in the literal sense.
Also true in the impression it is trying to leave, if the plant hadn't closed he would still have health benefits after his wife left her job. So the lack of health benefits is due to two factors, of which the ad only cares about one.
Not that I've seen the ad or care in the slightest of course.
There is a difference between fraud (lies used to gain a sale) and free speech. Whether this specific instance counts as fraud is questionable (every business is going to say their product is the "best" and every consumer knows, or should know that).
Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
There's only one reasonable and measured response to this. Isn't there?
And who exactly do we vote for? A piece of shit rich elitist who's only concern is making rich people richer at the expense of people like me? Or a 'know it all' douchebag who wants to spend all my money on shit I don't want or need?
I've voted straight libertarian for years. I honestly don't know or care about their message or ideals, I just want to vote, yet I don't want to be responsible for electing people from political parties who's only concern is taking my money or taking away my rights. Honestly, my voting hasn't changed jack shit. This year, I've decided not to vote.
It's all a lie and you should care, US citizen or not. Obama has power over far too much of this planet and whereever that is you are I guarantee you that impacts you to some degree. You want a liar running your life and stealing your money huh? Wake up.
1) the wife worked for an entirely different company and she was employed with health insurance at the time this man's company when under
2) the wife was injured and had to quit work which means she would likely been given a grace period on her policy for about 30 days
3) both of these people would have been able to be covered by COBRA if they couldn’t get other insurance (but as we know, he did have a policy on his next job..couldn’t afford to add his wife is misleading. Spouses are generally covered automatically at only a slightly higher premium
4) The company in question was going under and INVITED Bane in to save the business. Bane did what it could and put many millions of dollars into the company but these type business' were going broke all over the country (and world). Some companies are not saveable.
5) Romney was gone many years before this and was governor of Ma when the wife was diagnosed and died
6) His wife DID receive health care. She was never denied treatment. They didnt have insurance..that's entirely different.
Because, you know, Romney's such a straight up guy. /sarcasm
Vote for me and I'll do this ... ...
My opponent is bad because
A noble goal, but as it stands the only (unfortunate) realistic options are Obama or Romney, so it's more a decision of whose talking points you believe are most likely to be true and which way you want to be screwed.
Sadly, I think being screwed by Obama for another 4 years will be much more pleasant than Romney's cold mechanical caress.
You know I am pretty sure the one who wants to take from the common people and give to the tax collectors and other government officials is Obama, not Romney. Robin Hood took from tax collectors and other government officials and gave to the common people. The only reason that it was accurate to say that Robin Hood "stole from the rich and gave to the poor" was because if you were not a government official, you were not rich, you were poor. Robin Hood stole from the government and gave to the taxpayer because taxes were too high.
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
1. Allow free speech in advertising claims. (as above)
2. Every claim is understood to have an implicit footnote "This is probably a lie"*
3. Profit**
* except for those that claim to be a lie, which are only there to annoy logicians
** This is probably a lie
-- open source? sounds like the real book --
why wouldn't it? holy crap. the sensationalism in that title.. the obvious political slant coloured with righteous indignation. it makes me feel en garde, as if I'm being trolled, and sometimes I may be, but really I'm not, because it seems most people actually think the way the headline implies. people want the government to take control of everything. 10 trillion new laws a month, or get out of Washington. you're not doing your job!
holy god, man. it's like I like in bizarro-land. it really, truly is. is everyone insane?
How is Obama making the state rich? The state is poorer than ever.
And while Obama's accomplishments are definitely disappointing, Romney is far worse. He embodies everything that's wrong with the economy, and he's the ultimate flip flopper. No idea what he's really going to do, because there's no way we can believe anything he says. We do know he intends to subsidize the rich and tax the middle class, whereas Obama wants to do the reverse. If you want to fix the economy, then Romney is easily the worst guy to vote for.
It's be nice if there were better choices than these two, but of these two, there's no doubt that Obama is the lesser evil.
It's a second-class joke of a country.
Well said. Although for the past few decades, American politics has become a case fo voting for the lesser evil rather than the "best candidate"
Have to agree. Obama "seems" like a good man with good intentions, not to mention a ton of charisma. Problem is that so far he has shown he certainly is not a good leader. Bush, Reagan... love them or hate them, they got exactly what they wanted. Obama got virtually nothing he wanted.
Mittsy, on the other hand, seems to be shifty, coniving and cold hearted. He may be able to get what he wants. Problem is... look what he wants.
Real catch-22 for the voters.
Wuddooeyeno? IITYWYBMAD? Like nuts? eclecticallyincorrect.com
Freedom of speech != Freedom from consequences.
What do I know, I'm just an idiot, right?
And exactly what country do you live in that's so much better?
Every other country is just as much a joke if not more.
Especially so if you live in America, that country is the biggest joke of them all.
You want a liar running your life and stealing your money huh?
No, but I'm afraid we only get to choose humans for the position.
Dilbert RSS feed
Getting what they want is not necessarily a good thing when what they want is war, reduced civil rights, cronyism and poverty.
As for Obama, didn't he get his health care plan? That's a pretty big deal. I just wish he also wanted to reinstate decent civil rights.
While I can accept that freedom of speech includes the freedom to lie, it includes the duty to accept the consequences of lying.
So I would say that anybody who made a purchase based on a premeditated lie should be able to request not only a refund of anything paid but punitive damages. It should refund all customers who bought the lied about product, say, three times the amount they paid plus allowance for disruption and time wasted.
Consciousness is an illusion caused by an excess of self consciousness.
That's definitely a problem. In order to fix that, you'd really need to replace first-past-the-post with approval voting, and remove all corporate money from the elections.
At this point, this company is incapable of any real competition. It's pretty much a given, that any service they offer will be inefficient, unreliable and overpriced.
This is a company that uses Amdocs to do their billing. I actually worked in this little hell-hole for a while last year and got the opportunity to see first hand the "cutting edge technology" a-la Rogers: ridiculously archaic and notoriously unreliable.
I'm not clear on Canadian law. But in the US, "free speech" has traditionally meant the freedom to speak the truth, with courts giving the benefit of doubt to the speaker in determining truthfulness. Thus, one can always say "I think that $PERSON is an $INSULT" since you are merely expression your opinion, and nobody knows your opinion better than you. But "free speech" does not extend to lying when the lies cause harm to others. Hence, free speech does not permit one to "yell 'fire' in a crowded theater" resulting in injury to patrons in the mad rush to the exits. Except, if the theater really is on fire, then yelling "fire" is protected by free speech.
The questions in this case seem to be: (1) Did Rogers make false statements. (2) Did Rogers know that there statements were false (or should they known they were false.) (3) Did the false statements cause harm. If the answer to all three is "Yes" then free speech does not apply in this case.
This concept goes back to the 9th commandment: "You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor."
Whether Rogers is a single individual or a group of individuals acting together does not matter.
Not Speech!! Like everyone pointed out, that's an American thing. Canada's charter of rights has "Freedom of Expression".
Now, Rogers is still bonkers and this should not apply to a corporation.
Come on Editors, at least read the first paragraph of the linked CBC article.
Wearing pants should always be optional.
Except no one has actually given me any pure facts (not political facts) as to how Romney will help me and fix my issues. All I really have is what I can read about him, and what I read about him looks really bad for someone like me. I see republican (not really a fan), big corp (not really a fan), anti middle class (not really a fan), anti-gay marriage (bigot), anti-personal freedom, anti-woman's rights, so rich he's unconnected to the common man (not really a fan), no skills as a diplomat (not really a fan), and then there is his religion (not really a fan of any religion, but mormon is even scarier).
I don't know anything about his motives,his plans, his actual opinions, or even what he would do in his first day in office. All I know is 'REPEAL OBAMACARE, OBAMA MUST NOT BE ELECTED, OBAMA WILL SPEND ALL OUR MONEY, OBAMA WILL TAKE OUR GUNS, OBAMA IS THE DEVIL, OBAMA HATES WHITE PEOPLE', etc.
What I know about obama is that he is anti-personal freedom, 'pro' gay marriage, wants to tax people richer than me and help people less fortunate than me, didn't really do anything except his healthcare bill, and was president at a time where politics are so polarized we are lucky they can agree on even holding a session of congress let alone passing a bill.
I honestly have nothing to base my vote on. I'm not a member of a political party (religion) and I base my decision on actual facts and results, not propaganda. The facts are basically nil, the propaganda is basically so thick we could use it to land a martian rover, and all I can do is vote for anyone else.
If a man is struck down by a heart attack in the street, Americans will care for him whether or not he has insurance. If we find that he has spent his money on other things rather than insurance, we may be angry but we will not deny him services â" even if that means more prudent citizens end up paying the tab.
Many states nowâ¦require anybody driving a car to have liability insurance. But neither the federal government nor any state requires all households to protect themselves from the potentially catastrophic costs of a serious accident or illness. Under [our] plan, there would be such a requirementâ¦Mandate all households to obtain adequate insurance.
Is this Marx? Oh, wait, no: it's the Heritage Foundation, a conservative policy research institute, in '89. 23 years later and the same plan is suddenly "Marxist".
Dilbert RSS feed
FOX News had won the 'right' to knowingly lie in news broadcasts. The court case involved reporters who were told to lie about rBGH hormone in the production of milk; when they refused to lie on Monsanto's behalf, they were fired.
http://foxnewsboycott.com/resources/fox-can-lie-lawsuit/
Why do you hate our Constitution.
"The state is poorer than ever."
Good grief you are stupid, we are 15 trillion dollars in debt, that is money that the state has stolen from you and your children and spent on themselves while doling out the slightest trinkets to "poor" poeople to buy votes. The state is literally awash in our money. It is YOU who is broke citizen. Is ti really possible that you drones are THIS stupid?
"Obama is the lesser evil"
You are a lost cause.
Rogers and Bell are the Evil Duopoly in Canada. I'm not surprised Rogers is fighting for the right to lie to potential customers.
When Canada authorized the new carriers, the regulator put in a rule that said the incumbents (Rogers and others) had to provide roaming services for the new carriers at a reasonable charge.
If you're with one of the new guys and you have a call in progress when moving from your carrier's coverage area to Rogers, Rogers has the choice of continuing the live call, or killing it. If they kill it, you have to initiate a new call.
According to one report I saw when this whole mess started, Rogers chose the kill option. They may have used this is the basis for their "fewer dropped calls" claim.
In effect they say "we want to lie and deceive to make a buck".
...for AdBlock
how is obama going to tax the rich.
he also said he was going to end gitmo and both the wars.
he opposed the NDAA as he signed it into law.(could have veto'd).
not even any sort of shift in policy in that matter.
How is Obama going to do anything for the middle class besides lip service.
They are absolutely right. Free speech rights should allow them to tell any lies, misleading stories, and so on. On the other hand, consumer protection requires them to follow their free-speech-right guaranteed lies by factually correct statements.
Like: The cheque is in the post. No, it isn't, and you would be stupid if you believe it. Our network is the best in the country. No, it isn't. Our own numbers prove that it is the worst.
It's like a sauna in here.
No mas pantaloons.
It's FRAUD, not protected speech.
Plain and simple.
(Captcha: Crotch) Where I would kick Rogers if the corporation was a person.
Free speech is absolutely necessary in a democracy. Free speech is the last refuge of soundrels.
I love freedom of speech. I like opinions. But, when you say this car will go 100 mph and consume only 32 mpg, then, that car better go 100 mph and only consume 32 mpg. Retorting with, we threw it off a cliff and it got more than 32 mpg as it fell, isn't going to cut it, even though, it is technically true. So, in my deepest sense of respect for the 1st, (I'm in the US), I say, Burn Em.
Let them say, we like this more than any other provider. Notice, the we is them, and if they like it, trivially is true. Let them say, or service is awesome, which, is such a vague opinion, that is can't be false, unless they have absolutely no advantage on _any_ front and no customers.
Oh no! Politicians who lie! That is entirely unexpected!
As I said I still don't care in the slightest.
Actually, no he didn't. He compromised for Romney's health care plan. The one that Mittsy wants to repeal.
Wuddooeyeno? IITYWYBMAD? Like nuts? eclecticallyincorrect.com
Or Romney and his changing of whether he was or was not in charge of Bain Capital depending on whether he needed to establish residency to become governor, or whether it would make him unpopular?
Say whatever you want about them, they are still miles above what Romney & Co. are.
I would gladly have Obama in office 1000x over than give Romney power for one day.
Honestly, my voting hasn't changed jack shit.
And what have you done besides voting? Have you campaigned for libertarians? Have you tried to convince others to do so? Have you tried to influence one of the major parties, much like the Tea Party did in 2010?
Realize that most people vote for a major party out of PRACTICALITY. Sure, you can vote for someone who closely matches your ideas, but if they're not popular enough to win, then it's not going to do much good. And you run the risk of someone you really, really don't want in office getting in.
Romney made his money in the market, there is nothing wrong with that.
Bullshit. Just because someone made their money in the market doesn't mean they didn't do sleazy, shitty, abhorrent things to get it.
You don't like the choices don't complain to me, the choices are what they are, Obama or Romney and one is worse than the other.
Yes, Romney is clearly much, much worse.
Well, think of it this way: You have multiple choices, if you count 3rd parties. However, usually the closer you get to matching your ideas, the less appeal the candidate has to the general population. You can vote for someone who really matches your ideas, but then you run the risk of getting someone you really, really don't want in office winning. If you vote for someone who only mostly matches your ideas, or even only kinda, then in most cases that's still better than getting someone who opposes your ideas in office.
Which is honestly better: Getting someone who somewhat matches your ideas in office, or having someone who opposes your ideas in office?
that is money that the state has stolen
No, it hasn't. Taxes are not theft. They're the price of admission to live in civilized society.
he also said he was going to end gitmo,
Which he signed the Executive Order closing his first day in office. Problem is, the President is not an almighty dictator (this is not really a problem, it's a good thing), and can't really do a whole lot without Congressional funding or approval. Congress refused to fund the closing of the prison or authorize the transfer of the prisoners to the US, or anywhere, really.
and both the wars.
No, he really didn't. He did end Iraq, but he had campaigned the whole time about escalating Afghanistan and actually finding Osama. He even said that he's be willing to go into Pakistan (not invasion style, but more like sending strike teams in with the consent of the Pakistani government) to do so.
Except no one has actually given me any pure facts (not political facts) as to how Romney will help me and fix my issues.
To be fair, by the time those facts and plans had gotten to you, Romney would have changed his position 3 times over.
What I know about obama is that he is anti-personal freedom, 'pro' gay marriage, wants to tax people richer than me and help people less fortunate than me, didn't really do anything except his healthcare bill, and was president at a time where politics are so polarized we are lucky they can agree on even holding a session of congress let alone passing a bill.
There's a number of other things he accomplished. If you are a college student, or have credit cards, he was able to help you massively by overhauling the federal student loan program, and by passing the "Don't Be a Dick" rules for credit card companies.
It's all a lie and you should care
And how much should I care about all the lies that Romney has told?
...or does this not seem like the perfect opportunity for the competition to hoist Rogers by their own petard? I mean really - free speech? Then what's to stop me from telling the world about how Rogers phones emit a high powered form of ionizing radiation that causes impotence in males? That Rogers internet service will infect your computer with malware. That Alan Horn (Chairman) is an accused paedophile and that Nadir Mohammed (CEO) is terrorist?
I mean it's all free speech right?
If Rogers were exercising their right to freedom of speech, surely their customers were exercising the same right when they agreed to pay their bills. That's how it works, isn't it?
Just as it does give you the right to scream fire in a crowded theater, when there is no fire, freedom of speech does not give you the right to commit fraud.
The statement isn't unrealistic or unbelievable and seems quite objective, indicating it's most likely not puffery. If they knew it was false, it may be defamatory, and I hope they get pwned so hard.
Canada doesn't have "Freedom of Speech" protection, it has what's known as "Freedom of Expression" (Wikipedia Article / Scroll to Secton 2b for an explanation) which is not the same as "Freedom of Speech" in the american sense.
We have some limitations on what it covers & what can be restricted. Please don't confuse the two.
So Obama proposed Romneycare, and Romney is against it? Sounds very typical for both of them.
That's why approval voting would be so much better. You can vote for everybody you find acceptable. You can vote for the lesser evil as well as all the better candidates. Or if you think the lesser evil is too evil, you only vote for the better candidates. People can suddenly afford to vote for third party candidates, and if enough people do, one of them might make it. And otherwise you can still get the lesser evil.
And it's debt because it wasn't taxed. The Bush tax cuts are a significant part of that debt. Another part is of course the bank bailouts. And of course the wars. Didn't Haliburton and similar companies profit from those?
So basically Bush and Obama (mostly Bush, but Obama didn't really do much to change it) are ruining the state in order to subsidize the rich and the corporations. And why? Because all politicians are in the pockets of the corporations. All of them. Whereas the bankrupt state technically belongs to the people (though you hardly notice that nowadays). So it's a reverse Robin Hood: steal from the poor and give to the rich.
And there's nothing about Romney that suggests he'd be any different. In all likelihood he'll be much worse.
he also said he was going to end gitmo,
Which he signed the Executive Order closing his first day in office. Problem is, the President is not an almighty dictator (this is not really a problem, it's a good thing), and can't really do a whole lot without Congressional funding or approval. Congress refused to fund the closing of the prison or authorize the transfer of the prisoners to the US, or anywhere, really.
Why do they need to be locked up at all? Have they been charged with anything? Then give them a trial. If convicted, they can go to a normal prison. If not convicted, they should be released. It's really that simple.
Also, if they can't be convicted, I kinda think they deserve some compensation for the years of torture and imprisonment.
YES. Actually, eliminate all contributions. Get rid of the little box on income tax form that asks if you want $3 of your taxes to go for election purposes and just make it a fixed amount automatically used, and eliminate all donations and such, and make bribe-taking and back room deals treason punishable by confiscation and execution.
Oh look, let's lynch Rogers for maybe, possibly violating Canada Competition Act with some dubious advertisement claims, while enforcing and protecting government-sponsored, for-profit monopolies in the face of automotive insurance corporations like ICBC. Oh, Cana-duh.
No, compromised down to it. Wasn't close to what he wanted but he figgered it was better than nothing.
Wuddooeyeno? IITYWYBMAD? Like nuts? eclecticallyincorrect.com
I am 100% on board with approval voting, or IRV voting.