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?
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/
(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.
Rogers is the epitome of crass, lying corporate greed. Day by day, in every way, they drive their customers away, unless they are your monopoly provider - feel the screw, see your life's blood drain away.
They are the corporate equivalent of King George, who so enraged the 13 original colonies that they felt compelled to invite him to tea.
Now, That's a good idea - immerse Rogers in boiling water - but drink nothing...
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
"Telco" means TELephone COmpany, so the headline starts, "Telephone Company Company...". At least the summary doesn't mention "ATM machines" or "PIN numbers". /. fallen off a cliff lately?
Is it just me, or has the quality of writing on
Lately? It happened quite a while ago. Not to worry, there are even worse abominations such as "Personal PIN Numbers" lurking in the future.
Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. - Voltaire
Slander and libel are both illegal. They have both been illegal for a very long time going back to British laws. The one difference is that truth is considered a defense in the U.S. while in the U.K. it can still be considered irrelevant.
Lies are *not* protected speech when harm can be demonstrated.
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.
The one difference is that truth is considered a defense in the U.S. while in the U.K. it can still be considered irrelevant.
The main difference there is that something being true doesn't mean that you have a right to say it; certain parts of the truth are still unreasonable and harmful to say. Something being the truth does shift the onus much more strongly towards the plaintiff to show that it shouldn't have been said though. It doesn't come up very often, to be honest.
"Little does he know, but there is no 'I' in 'Idiot'!"
Right attitude wrong analogy
1) King George (III) did not mandate taxes in the colonies, the monarchy was already a pretty powerless figurehead, Parliament mandated the taxes
2) The tax changes that caused the Boston Tea Party were a subsidy paid to the East India Company ...this meant that the price of Tea was lower, and the Tea thrown into the Sea was cheap tea that would have flooded the market and made the Luxury commodity of Tea suddenly very cheap, the only people who would lose out were Tea Smugglers, and Non East India company merchants
The real thing most of the 13 colonies were complaining about was taxation (at all) without representation - Not any particular tax, this tax change was just the flashpoint
Puteulanus fenestra mortis
in that a person can lie, and this is protected speech
A lie is protected speech. A lie for profit is fraud.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
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 --
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.
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
Nice try.
Obama's legacy: (N)othing (S)ecure (A)nywhere and (T)error (S)imulation (A)dministration
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/
Not all speech is protected, and there is a strong argument that the particular speech in question amounts to fraud, which is definitely not protected constitutionally, in Canada or the US.
Rule of Slashdot #0: You and people like you are not representative of the larger population. - A.C.
Rogers and Bell are the Evil Duopoly in Canada. I'm not surprised Rogers is fighting for the right to lie to potential customers.
The other thing that King George did was declare that all his subjects were equal including the North American Natives and that the American colonists were to stop stealing their land and expanding to the east.
As a good number of the founding fathers were land speculators, and common people wanted their own land, this was a large motivation for the revolt.
Another motivation that isn't talked about much was the capture of Quebec in IIRC 1763 and subsequently the expanding of rights for Roman Catholics including allowing them in government. England had been very anti-Catholic, the Bill of Rights of 1689 only allowed non-Catholics to bear arms and it still illegal for the Royal Family to marry a Catholic.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
Depends on why she withheld Royal Assent and how popular the decision was. She'd pretty well have to dissolve Parliament and the subsequent election would probably revolve around keeping the monarchy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
...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?