Next On The FTC Agenda: Fines For Hotlinking And Failure To Hat Tip

Print This Post

You may also like...

13 Responses

  1. Ken says:

    This makes me very angry and agitated. I need something to soothe and cool me down — a refreshing, clean Zima, perhaps. Zima — the blogger's drink.

  2. Linus says:

    I have heard (and argued with) numerous otherwise-intelligent people who "poo-poo" the slippery slope, or argue that only moonbats and paranoids believe in it. I assert that any lawyer who doesn't believe in it was asleep all through law school and is asleep today. ALL of your legal arguments are based on precedent (for prior situations exactly like yours) and analogy (for every other situation) or some mix of the two. How is it crazy to think an argument will be made exactly like the one Patrick wrote above? It's a lawyer's JOB to extend the umbrella of the law to cover his client (in good faith, of course).

    To placate such fears, Cleland said the FTC will more likely go after an advertiser instead of a blogger for violations

    Your Honor, the FTC has been going after advertisers for violations for years. There's no reason not to punish the other party to the transaction as well.

    I cannot believe that anyone, anywhere, still buys the argument "I promise, I will only use my powers for good."

    I prefer Mexican Coke to the American-made version.

  3. Bob says:

    Who cares what you think? You're not a substantial blog until the FTC comes after you.

  4. Patrick says:

    I wonder whether, when the New York Times editorializes in favor of these regulations, as it will, the Times will disclose that its advertising revenues are plummeting in part because many people prefer to read opinions, and even news, from bloggers.

  5. shg says:

    The 1961 Ferrari California 250 GT Spyder is a spectacular car that I highly recommend. Now, as soon as someone sends me a free one, I will happily pay my $11,000 fine. Any takers?

  6. Windypundit says:

    I doubt they'd take on someone like Glenn Reynolds. He's far too mainstream. I think they'll use this as an excuse to attack what they've always attacked: Things that are, by some politicaly useful definition, sinful. If these guidelines go into effect, it won't be very long before they hit sites that review pornography, tobacco, alcohol, and guns.

  7. MisterDNA says:

    To placate such fears, Cleland said the FTC will more likely go after an advertiser instead of a blogger for violations

    That's a red flag right there.

    If they don't plan on going after bloggers, they need to make that clear in the law.

    This has happened with all sorts of bad laws: Lawmaker says, "This law is intended to go after the most egregious violators, not the rank-and-file man on the street", yet when Mr. Rank-and-File Man On The Street gets arrested under the new law, the lawmaker says, "Well, he broke the law and we have to send a message." (cf. the grandmother in Indiana arrested last week for buying OTC cold remedies.)

    Of course, the FTC would surely never go after a lowly blogger just for stating a cold, hard fact: a vintage Gretsch guitar is a wise investment; if you don't already own one, get yours today!

  8. Kevin says:

    Once we head down the Party Y / Campaign Z slippery slope you've mentioned, will we see reporters disclosing who their spouses are employed by? Who their college roommates are married to? Who their mistresses work for?

    Because every time I do find out something about the careers of Senators' spouses and senior administration officials 20-year racquetball partners, it's usually pretty interesting. And appalling.

  9. mojo says:

    Sure would be interesting if the FTC's internal decision-making docs somehow got wide release on the web, wouldn't it?

    Of course, that could never happen. The Government controls the internet.


  10. Chris says:

    They stopped making Zima, FYI. Probably because of the FTC.

  11. I always feel secure when assured that the gov't will "more likely" do or not do anything.

    *I was not compensated by anyone to state such opinions. These opinions are simply opinions and are in no was meant to disparage or otherwise detract from the great reputation that the US Gov't has built behind its 'brand'.

  1. October 8, 2009

    […] power grab. … preposterous … The guidelines have to be read to be believed." ); Patrick at Popehat ("Next on the FTC agenda: fines for hotlinking and failure to hat tip … Yes, I believe […]

  2. October 8, 2009

    […] back before I had this blog and that one had to contain a broader range of topics.  Both Patrick of PopeHat and Glenn Reynolds have seen fit to link back to it, longingly, and as Patrick says, "Ron […]