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."
C.U. didn't establish the "corporations are people" thing, that was a much older case. C.U. just extended it to electioneering.
We still have laws against deceptive advertising, although of course those don't apply to politicians. I guess in Freem'Arkhet's ideal system (the anarchocapitalist "libertarian" utopia that I see people call for here) we'd allow the company to advertise whatever they want and the end consumer (invariably the lowest-information actor in the system) would have the responsibility to figure out what was and wasn't bullshit, but we aren't quite there yet.
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/
To extend what AC said here, Corporate Personhood has a very long and sorted history in the U.S. It is considered a precedent by the court, but the way that it became a precedent was through a court clerk inserting a footnote. The history is important and it's something that people should know about. Wikipedia has a good reference here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_personhood and the books it references explain the history very well.
One thing is clear: the founders and never wanted corporations to have too much power. They had direct knowledge of companies with too much power did through their experiences with the East India Company.
Corporate Personhood was not a footnote inserted by some clerk.
Corporate Personhood (CP from here in) is essentially just another in the long line of Unintended Consequences.
Specifically the claim was made that the contract was with the corporation, not the individuals behind it, and since a corporation was not a person, it could not be sued. Thus when they failed to meet the contractual obligations (and get sued for breach) the person wronged was left without any method of redress. CP was a method of holding corporations accountable, and forcing them to fulfil contracts. It was actually fought by many corporations initially.
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.