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."
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.)
It wouldn't have even played. There would be no action taken. If they really wanted to lock it up, the company would just sponsor a "study" to "prove" whatever they wanted.
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/
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
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.
So, treat corporations as people when it comes to personal freedoms, but not when it comes to breaking laws? I know if I ever personally go out and take money from people for something that doesn't actually exist I will go to prison as a con artist. But corporations are saying they shouldn't even be fined? For doing the same thing?
No, corporations are not people. they are merely a means for people. a means of personal income, a means of progressing society and a means of stopping boredom (and thusly crime, making society better overall.) And people run them well get rewarded well for their efforts. Therefore corporations ought to do right for the people, since that is their underlying purpose. Lets stop acting like the converse is true, please.
And you're fine with the dozens of claims Romney has said and shown in a matter of hours to be incorrect of absolutely misleading?
Go away. Really.. shut up and go away.
Because honour, honesty, and integrity has nothing to do with it.
...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?