Slashdot Mirror
California Bill Would Safeguard Consumers' Rights To Criticize Firms Online
An anonymous reader writes in with news about a California bill that aims to protect online reviewers’ rights."The proposed law appears to take aim at online licensing agreements that consumers often enter into with companies when they click through the many boilerplate terms and conditions of various online services. Buried deep in the small print of a number of these contacts are provisions stating that consumers agree not to write negative reviews about the service provider. 'If merchants think that our First Amendment free speech rights need to be curtailed, they should say so upfront and in plain language,' Pérez explained of the impetus for his bill, as reported by the Times."
The First Amendment protects us from prosecution by the government. It doesn't protect us from civil matters with private companies. This Pérez guy should know that.
"Here Lies Philip J. Fry, named for his uncle, to carry on his spirit"
You're free to do what you want, and the government won't interfere...
Except for the literally tens of thousands of inane and pointless restrictions placed upon you by the one sided contracts that you must sign to take part in modern life.
Want a job so you can pay your expenses?
Better sign over your right to intellectual properties you create.
Want to get to that job?
Better sign over numerous detailed and unnecessary rights as part of your car loan.
Want to have shelter?
Here comes Mr. Landlord or Mrs. Deed Covenant.
Want to use basic tools to communicate?
Sure, we'll add limitations to your rights to random websites too.
You'd think that out of all the people inserting mandatory arbitration and anti-disparagement clauses in their terms of use, one of them would stop and say, "Wait a minute, you can't waive your constitutional rights!"
As it turns out a lot of states actually allow people to do things like waive their right to a jury trial, for instance. Always read the fine print.
A better idea is to legislate that these licenses are non-binding.
Not that I'm defending people who write contracts here, but the notion of plain language is not unambiguous. What counts as plain is dependent upon the reader's level of fluency, and because not all native speakers of a language have the same level of fluency the notion of 'plain' differs from person to person. The reason clauses of a contract or often not plain is because of the use of specialist language. However, that specialist language has a specific function: reducing ambiguity. In order to make a contract more plain, more commonly understood language needs to be used, but more commonly understood language is necessarily more ambiguous, and thus open for interpretation. If there's one thing no one wants it's that their rights critically depend upon the interpretative powers of another person. This is why the words "In a 5-4 decision, the supreme court..." inspire such dread.
By reading this post, you agree to refrain from downmodding this message or any other message that I may post here in the future.
(Lessee ... where's the font-size control here ...)
Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
Wait until the online EULAs require mandatory arbitration before you can post something derogatory.
You know how many online ordering sites have a comment box? How about entering, "By accepting my payment, you agree to make your EULA null and void."
This seems a lot like nondisclosure agreements, stuff like "we'll give you $X to settle this / as a hiring bonus / as severance, on the condition that you don't tell anybody". Those seem entirely valid to me, and most certainly don't violate 1st amendment rights whatsoever.
And here in Europe we _are_ protected in our interactions with private companies just as we are with the government.
Oh, we are certainly not perfect, and I am the first to admit that, but we seem to have a better understanding of it means to be truly free than the average US citizen seems to do.
At times, your "freedom" seems closer to Ferengi style capitalism than the socially responsible capitalism we have over here.
Because the person is getting a significant extra benefit---a substantial sum of money---as a primary, and clearly negotiated result of a contract about that very issue. I get X for Y.
It's completely different, for instance, if you take a taxi to the airport, and then find a submarine clause that your "taxi-use license" required you to pay the driver's fuel cost for the next year, and forbade you from telling anybody that the taxi company did this.
The usual is "get ride for money" or "get meal for money", not "get meal and gag order for money".
Rather than allowing EULAs written by companies, we should just have standard EULAs, for common types of products, and declare all other EULAs nonbinding.
I understand the need to have contracts that are nuanced, but for the kinds of contracts that you "agree" to simply by opening a box, should be standardized and devoid of any nefarious language.
I should not be able to send a letter to someone that says "By opening the envelope this letter arrived in, you agree to write me a check for $10,000, and failure to do so within 30 days will result in litigation" (and have it be enforceable). For the same reason, companies should not be able to have custom EULAs that are implicitly agreed to by opening a box or envelope.
Sure we can put the responsibility on the consumer to read every EULA for everything he/she buys from an OS to a bluetooth headset, but this is just a waste of everyone's time. We already invalidate stupid EULAs for being stupid. Lets just go one step further and make an implied boilerplate EULA that everyone is aware of and doesn't include anything shady.
Yeah, I guess as long as we plan to quit cheating on our spouses (someday), then the basic immorality is somehow cool.
Get thee glass eyes, and, like a scurvy politician, seem to see things thou dost not.--King Lear
That's true, provided that no court enforce the civil matters.
If I fail to provide you, my customer, with a soapbox, that's not a First Amendment issue. If I provide a soapbox (owned by me) and then limit what you're allowed to say while standing on my soapbox, that's also not a First Amendment issue. If someone else provides a soapbox and people use it to say things I don't like, I can even make a deal with the soapbox's owner, to have them limit peoples' speech on my behalf. Not a First Amendment issue.
So far, so good.
But if someone else provides a soapbox and people use it to say things I don't like, and then I go crying to the government demanding that government force be used against the people saying things that I dislike, and then the government does what I want, that is a First Amendment issue. To make it not be a First Amendment issue, the government has to stay out of it. They should laugh in my face, when I demand they use the peoples' power and the taxpayers money, to prevent speech-I-don't-like.
But that's not happening. When the crybabys go to the government, the government is telling them, "Yes, I will enforce your anti-speech contract." That's a violation of the constitution.
That's government deciding to use force against someone, based on the content of their speech.
That's political power taking sides in a previously-private matter. It's not merely civil anymore. Somebody reached for their gun.
If there's any chance that a judge can tell you "don't do that," and his bailiff might end up pointing a gun in at your face, then rights are at stake. That doesn't mean you can't use contracts, but once you use a contract, you are pulling the government into the matter, so you better not use them to do things that they are explicitly prohibited from doing.
If you want to keep the government out of it (with all the prohibitons against government doing certain things), then keep the government out of it!
The proposed bill makes the contract non-binding
According to the language of AB 2365, introduced on February 21, 2014 by California Assembly Member John A. Pérez (D-Los Angeles), a contract would be deemed unlawful “if it includes a provision requiring the consumer to waive his or her right to make any statement regarding the consumer’s experience with the business, or to threaten or seek to enforce such a provision unless the waiver of this right was knowing, voluntary and intelligent.”
We should actually start reading the eulas before we accept them. And then post the gory details to places like slashdot so that millions (well, okay, dozens 8^) of other people can boycott these products.
If someone can't ask me what I think of Product/Service without me worrying about some asshole suing me to death over my experiences/opinions, then fuck it, let's stop pretending we live in a free country. Yes, speech should have consequences, but there's a huge difference between libel/slander and expressing a mother fucking opinion.
If you were me, you'd be good lookin'. - six string samurai
By "these licenses" I meant EULAs in general, not just ones with this particular provision.
I told the clerk at the grocery store yesterday that I actually found a tiny piece of clam in my Campbell's Clam Chowder. I asked if i should call Homeland Security. It was clear to me and her as well that finding a bit of a clam in their soup was so unusual that perhaps Homeland Security should investigate and find out just why somehow they accidentally added a tiny piece of clam to their Clam Chowder. Now I am in legal jeopardy for reporting that which I really did say in public? Does that make me more liable than when I say that Chrysler cars and trucks fall art way too easily? How does that compare to saying that the US House of Representatives has a lazy, stupid and corrupt majority. Does that get me a citation for contempt of congress? Am i being unfair or just warning my friends that some bad products are on the market? And don't get me started about GM allowing lethally bad parts to remain on the road in their cars. Can i be sued for using the word murder?