Telco Company Claims Freedom of Speech Includes Misleading Ads 244
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."
Re:Corporations are people? (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Dear Rogers (Score:2, Informative)
(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.
Re:Hope Rogers loses (Score:4, Informative)
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...
Re:Corporations are people? (Score:5, Informative)
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 [wikipedia.org] 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.
Re:Corporations are people? (Score:5, Informative)
Corporate Personhood has a very long and sorted history in the U.S.
Promise I am not being a jerk, but it is sordid. I completely agree with the rest of the story. :)
Re:Hope Rogers loses (Score:4, Informative)
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
Re:this actually makes sense (Score:4, Informative)
in that a person can lie, and this is protected speech
A lie is protected speech. A lie for profit is fraud.
Argh, Summary is wrong: Freedom of EXPRESSION (Score:3, Informative)
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.
Pre-CU, corporatism was already very strong (Score:3, Informative)
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/ [foxnewsboycott.com]
Re:Hope Rogers loses (Score:4, Informative)
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.