Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Telco Company Claims Freedom of Speech Includes Misleading Ads

samzenpus posted more than 2 years ago | from the liar-liar dept.

Advertising 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."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Corporations are people? (3, Interesting)

Stormthirst (66538) | more than 2 years ago | (#40929731)

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?

Re:Corporations are people? (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40929789)

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.

Re:Corporations are people? (5, Informative)

MickyTheIdiot (1032226) | more than 2 years ago | (#40929915)

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? (4, Informative)

RatPh!nk (216977) | more than 2 years ago | (#40929973)

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:Corporations are people? (1, Insightful)

Gripp (1969738) | more than 2 years ago | (#40930107)

So, treat corporations as people when it comes to personal freedoms, but not when it comes to breaking laws? I know if I ever personally go out and take money from people for something that doesn't actually exist I will go to prison as a con artist. But corporations are saying they shouldn't even be fined? For doing the same thing?

No, corporations are not people. they are merely a means for people. a means of personal income, a means of progressing society and a means of stopping boredom (and thusly crime, making society better overall.) And people run them well get rewarded well for their efforts. Therefore corporations ought to do right for the people, since that is their underlying purpose. Lets stop acting like the converse is true, please.

Re:Corporations are people? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40930579)

Agreed. Corporate personhood is a failed experiment that needs to be stopped ASAP. Just that nobody has the guts to do so.

Re:Corporations are people? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40930671)

Just as with people, some companies are more equal than others. We don't have a problem with small companies to fall (fire worker at will), but once the company has significant presence and significance it is too large to fail (fire CEO who is protected by contract, golden parachute etc)

Re:Corporations are people? (1)

Anachragnome (1008495) | more than 2 years ago | (#40930677)

"...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."

I think our Founding Fathers had more direct interaction with Hudson's Bay Company--probably the closest corporations and government can get to each other without one of them giving birth. In this case, that happened anyway and The United States of America was born.

Re:Corporations are people? (3, Insightful)

lorenlal (164133) | more than 2 years ago | (#40929797)

It wouldn't have even played. There would be no action taken. If they really wanted to lock it up, the company would just sponsor a "study" to "prove" whatever they wanted.

Re:Corporations are people? (1)

Smallpond (221300) | more than 2 years ago | (#40929801)

I'm not sure what this means, but in the US prosecuting deceptive advertising is the responsibility of FTC Chairman Orson Swindle.

Re:Corporations are people? (1)

c0lo (1497653) | more than 2 years ago | (#40929947)

FTC Chairman Orson Swindle.

Until I googled, I could have bet that having FTC and swindle in the same phrase was an intended pun... imagine my surprise when I saw it isn't!

Re:Corporations are people? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40930219)

While that was certianly a hilarious name in that context, Mr. Swindle hasn't been chairman since 2005. Today it's Jon Leibowitz.

No, not the one with a fake news show on Comedy Central, although that would be pretty funny, too.

Re:Corporations are people? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40929843)

Shut up already about Citizens United, no one cares but you moonbats and leftist shills.

Answer: (2)

daveschroeder (516195) | more than 2 years ago | (#40929867)

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

Re:Answer: (2)

sonamchauhan (587356) | more than 2 years ago | (#40930003)

> That said, the concept of "corporate personhood" ...

I first read this as "Corporate priesthood"!

Which isn't too far off the mark, given how seriously most of us take our jobs and corporate life in general.

Re:Answer: (1)

radtea (464814) | more than 2 years ago | (#40930617)

I first read this as "Corporate priesthood"!

This is genius! If corporations are people in the US, and churches are tax-exempt, and according to what James Randi says the religious lobby in the US is so strong that not even the IRS will go after churches, what's to stop a corporation's officers from declaring itself the head of a church--in its role as "corporate person"--and then carrying all of its economic activity out under the untaxed, unscrutinized auspices of that church?

Re:Corporations are people? (0)

DNS-and-BIND (461968) | more than 2 years ago | (#40930065)

Thanks for - once again - self-centeredly turning any topic on Slashdot, no matter how distant, into America-first navel-gazing. Jeez louise people, it's not all about you. Stop it.

Re:Corporations are people? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40930135)

Actually - it *is* all about us. Didn't you get the memo?

Re:Corporations are people? (1)

MitchDev (2526834) | more than 2 years ago | (#40930507)

We have the nukes, now go back to your cute little country thinking you matter ;)

Re:Corporations are people? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40930571)

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?

In the U.S. the "correctness" of a Corporations claims are directly proportional to the amount of their campaign contributions.

Hope Rogers loses (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40929733)

If they win, the Canadian government should sue them for fraud and put they're lying asses out of business.

Re:Hope Rogers loses (3, Informative)

aurizon (122550) | more than 2 years ago | (#40929841)

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:Hope Rogers loses (3, Informative)

JasterBobaMereel (1102861) | more than 2 years ago | (#40930139)

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:Hope Rogers loses (1)

aurizon (122550) | more than 2 years ago | (#40930353)

Aspects of history I was not aware of, esp the tea details.
The image of George III as a porphyritic bête noire who ran things at his personal whim is what I thought was the state of affairs?

Freedom of responsibility. (3, Insightful)

Forty Two Tenfold (1134125) | more than 2 years ago | (#40929747)

You can say anything you want. Just have the balls to suffer the consequences. That's why I don't post unpopular opinions anonymously.

Re:Freedom of responsibility. (2)

fustakrakich (1673220) | more than 2 years ago | (#40929883)

The only permissible 'consequence' against 'offensive' speech should be nothing more than a counter statement.

Re:Freedom of responsibility. (1)

djmurdoch (306849) | more than 2 years ago | (#40930043)

When the speech is a fraudulent claim (as in TFA), there should be harsher consequences.

Re:Freedom of responsibility. (1)

Attila Dimedici (1036002) | more than 2 years ago | (#40930167)

The only permissible 'consequence' against 'offensive' speech should be nothing more than a counter statement.

I would disagree. It is perfectly acceptable for people to choose to not associate with or do business with people whose speech they find offensive. So, one consequence of "offensive" speech is that some people will choose not to do business with you. Carbonite has discovered this effect. They publicly stated that they were choosing to not do business with someone who said something they found offensive about someone who supported the same political positions as their CEO (even though they continue to do business with someone who shares those political positions who said the same sort of offensive remarks about someone who opposes those political positions). They discovered that more people were offended by their statement than they expected and as a result their revenues have suffered significantly.

Chatr = anti competition "crime" (4, Insightful)

Maow (620678) | more than 2 years ago | (#40929791)

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.)

Re:Chatr = anti competition "crime" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40929905)

I'm up in september. Can't wait to make the switch it's been a real big grind dealing with Rogers. I had so many dropped calls when I was in Toronto and they wouldn't acknowledge them... my call with support dropped three times.

Re:Chatr = anti competition "crime" (1)

MitchDev (2526834) | more than 2 years ago | (#40930539)

Them hanging up on you doesn't count as a dropped call... Remember the only Lily Tomlin bit "We're the phone company, we don't have to care"

Re:Chatr = anti competition "crime" (1)

realityimpaired (1668397) | more than 2 years ago | (#40930745)

When I switched from them to Koodo (subsidiary of Telus, working on the Bell/Telus network), they charged me $400 because they'd gone and renewed my contract without telling me... they refused to refund it, so I cancelled my television/internet and homephone with them as well. They called me up and asked what it would take to get me back as a customer, I told them that their mobility department had screwed the pooch, and that I would get an Inmarsat connection before I ever got Rogers again. they were unamused.

I suggest you switch as soon as you can, though.... your contract is up in September, so the ETP will not be that much (probably $0 because you have to give 30 days notice), and you don't risk the fuckers renewing your contract without telling you like they did mine. Plus, you can take advantage of the back to school special offers they have... most of the major players are currently offering 6GB data/voice plans for about $60/mo.

Re:Chatr = anti competition "crime" (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40930255)

It's not like this is new behaviour for Rogers.

They previously claimed that they are "Canada's most reliable network" (which is actually less specific than this claim), and gotten shot down in a similar manner in 2009.

Apparently Rogers is too awesome to learn from its mistakes...

Alrighty then... (2, Funny)

fahrbot-bot (874524) | more than 2 years ago | (#40929793)

... fried chicken and french fries are now health food and the Pill can prevent STDs.

Re:Alrighty then... (1, Funny)

mfwitten (1906728) | more than 2 years ago | (#40929941)

... and homeopathy and chiropractic are now legitimate medicine worthy of coverage...

*this* is the solution (2)

kipling (24579) | more than 2 years ago | (#40930259)

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

Freedom of speech? (5, Insightful)

xmundt (415364) | more than 2 years ago | (#40929809)

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

"Telco Company"? Really? (0, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40929815)

"Telco" means TELephone COmpany, so the headline starts, "Telephone Company Company...". At least the summary doesn't mention "ATM machines" or "PIN numbers". Is it just me, or has the quality of writing on /. fallen off a cliff lately?

Re:"Telco Company"? Really? (1)

Stirling Newberry (848268) | more than 2 years ago | (#40929857)

If you think the stories are bad, read the links.

Re:"Telco Company"? Really? (2)

AliasMarlowe (1042386) | more than 2 years ago | (#40929897)

"Telco" means TELephone COmpany, so the headline starts, "Telephone Company Company...". At least the summary doesn't mention "ATM machines" or "PIN numbers".
Is it just me, or has the quality of writing on /. fallen off a cliff lately?

Lately? It happened quite a while ago. Not to worry, there are even worse abominations such as "Personal PIN Numbers" lurking in the future.

Re:"Telco Company"? Really? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40930029)

How inconvenient. It would be easier to simply call them PPINN numbers.

Re:"Telco Company"? Really? (1)

RivenAleem (1590553) | more than 2 years ago | (#40930099)

Personally Identifying PIN Numbers, surely.

Re:"Telco Company"? Really? (1)

Samantha Wright (1324923) | more than 2 years ago | (#40930173)

I almost couldn't believe it myself when I saw your post on my liquid-crystal LCD display. But if you have a moment, this short educational, informative public service PSA announcement from the Unabridged and Expanded Redundant Department of Redundancy Department might change your mind about "personal PIN number."

One, people can have more than one PIN. Personally, I've had a personal PIN, a work PIN, and during an ill-fated experiment a few years ago, an entrepreneurial PIN. If I were to go around talking about WINs and EINs, people would start thinking I was greatly concerned with victory and German, which would be very odd.

Two, PINs consist of more than just their number. They have an association with a bank account, a date that they were set, and possibly other pieces of metadata that I can't think of for this tongue-in-cheek lecturification. There are certain contexts—and I'm not saying they're necessarily as common as the phrase "PIN number"—where you actually may be referring to just the digits of the PIN, and not to the PIN as a whole entity. Talking about a PIN number could be equivalent to saying "the digits of one's PIN", or the characters of a string. (Java programmers, long forced to put up with immutable strings, may not understand this. Are you a Java programmer? If you don't know, look for a mysterious odour of rancid coffee that follows you everywhere you go.)

(Note: I do not condone any of this and have written it purely for the sake of argument, which you wouldn't think needs much help given how many arguments go on daily, but I suppose it was bound to happen anyway. I guess I kinda believe the first point, but the second is just too silly.)

- Sent from my iPhone mobile telephone

Re:"Telco Company"? Really? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40930057)

No it doesn't. It means TELeCOm company. There is no redundancy here.

Re:"Telco Company"? Really? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40930383)

No, it doesn't. The abbreviation is older than you are, moron. Go play in traffic.

Re:"Telco Company"? Really? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40930349)

You are right about Telco and PIN. You are wrong about ATM though only because of the alternative uses such as Asynchronous Transfer Mode - the networking tech. If you just say ATM on a tech site, unless you make it really clear by context you should probably continue to put the redundant "machine" on the end to make it clear what ATM stands for. So if it was something like "Bank of America ATMs hacked to dispense cash" - yeah, don't say machine. But if it was "problem found in commonly used ATM protocol" - you probably should add machine to it to give some context.

Misleading ads? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40929819)

You mean like Obama and his lies about the cancer victim?

Yes, it's like that folks.

"The ad features Joe Soptic, who lost his job and his health benefits after Romney's Bain Capital closed the GST Steel plant in Kansas City, Mo., in 2001. Soptic later told CNN that his wife had health insurance through her own employer from that point to 2002 or 2003, when she left that job because of an injury—a detail that undermines the ad's heartbreaking narrative.

"I don't know the facts about when Mr. Soptic's wife got sick, or the facts about his health insurance," deputy campaign manager Stephanie Cutter told CNN on Wednesday."

Amazingly the Democratic lapdogs and sock puppets CNN reported on this?

Face it leftists, your Marxist "professor" is done.

Re:Misleading ads? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40929875)

Yeah, we sure want mister inverse-Robin hood in power do we ?

Re:Misleading ads? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40929935)

Shut up, I asked you a question.

Address the question or brand yourself a fool. Obama and his minions, handlers and money men are lying thieving scoundrels.

How can you people possibly sleep at night if you do not realize this?

Wake up people, vote these lying scumbags out of office and away from spending more of our money.

Re:Misleading ads? (1)

FictionPimp (712802) | more than 2 years ago | (#40930069)

And who exactly do we vote for? A piece of shit rich elitist who's only concern is making rich people richer at the expense of people like me? Or a 'know it all' douchebag who wants to spend all my money on shit I don't want or need?

I've voted straight libertarian for years. I honestly don't know or care about their message or ideals, I just want to vote, yet I don't want to be responsible for electing people from political parties who's only concern is taking my money or taking away my rights. Honestly, my voting hasn't changed jack shit. This year, I've decided not to vote.

Re:Misleading ads? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40930231)

Shut up with your insults and attacks on Romney. Romney made his money in the market, there is nothing wrong with that. Stop drinking the koolaid. You think Romney is "making rich people richer at the expense of people like me"? What the bloody hell do you think Obama is doing? Making the state rich at the expense of all citizens.

You must vote Obama out, that means Romney. You don't like the choices don't complain to me, the choices are what they are, Obama or Romney and one is worse than the other.

More important is local and congressional elections, this is where you should focus your energies on. We get Obama out, we can work on the rest later. If Obama remains then there is little chance we will ever recover. Use your brain man.

We MUST defeat Obama.

Re:Misleading ads? (1)

mcvos (645701) | more than 2 years ago | (#40930435)

How is Obama making the state rich? The state is poorer than ever.

And while Obama's accomplishments are definitely disappointing, Romney is far worse. He embodies everything that's wrong with the economy, and he's the ultimate flip flopper. No idea what he's really going to do, because there's no way we can believe anything he says. We do know he intends to subsidize the rich and tax the middle class, whereas Obama wants to do the reverse. If you want to fix the economy, then Romney is easily the worst guy to vote for.

It's be nice if there were better choices than these two, but of these two, there's no doubt that Obama is the lesser evil.

Re:Misleading ads? (1)

MitchDev (2526834) | more than 2 years ago | (#40930589)

Well said. Although for the past few decades, American politics has become a case fo voting for the lesser evil rather than the "best candidate"

Re:Misleading ads? (1)

mcvos (645701) | more than 2 years ago | (#40930683)

That's definitely a problem. In order to fix that, you'd really need to replace first-past-the-post with approval voting, and remove all corporate money from the elections.

Re:Misleading ads? (1)

garyoa1 (2067072) | more than 2 years ago | (#40930613)

Have to agree. Obama "seems" like a good man with good intentions, not to mention a ton of charisma. Problem is that so far he has shown he certainly is not a good leader. Bush, Reagan... love them or hate them, they got exactly what they wanted. Obama got virtually nothing he wanted.

Mittsy, on the other hand, seems to be shifty, coniving and cold hearted. He may be able to get what he wants. Problem is... look what he wants.

Real catch-22 for the voters.

Re:Misleading ads? (0)

mcvos (645701) | more than 2 years ago | (#40930667)

Getting what they want is not necessarily a good thing when what they want is war, reduced civil rights, cronyism and poverty.

As for Obama, didn't he get his health care plan? That's a pretty big deal. I just wish he also wanted to reinstate decent civil rights.

Re:Misleading ads? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40930091)

Because, you know, Romney's such a straight up guy. /sarcasm

Re:Misleading ads? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40930151)

A noble goal, but as it stands the only (unfortunate) realistic options are Obama or Romney, so it's more a decision of whose talking points you believe are most likely to be true and which way you want to be screwed.

Sadly, I think being screwed by Obama for another 4 years will be much more pleasant than Romney's cold mechanical caress.

Re:Misleading ads? (1)

Attila Dimedici (1036002) | more than 2 years ago | (#40930241)

You know I am pretty sure the one who wants to take from the common people and give to the tax collectors and other government officials is Obama, not Romney. Robin Hood took from tax collectors and other government officials and gave to the common people. The only reason that it was accurate to say that Robin Hood "stole from the rich and gave to the poor" was because if you were not a government official, you were not rich, you were poor. Robin Hood stole from the government and gave to the taxpayer because taxes were too high.

Re:Misleading ads? (1)

nedlohs (1335013) | more than 2 years ago | (#40929985)

That statement seems true, unless you are claiming he never lost his health benefits or lost them prior to the steel plant closing. Last I checked 2003 is after 2001. So true in the literal sense.

Also true in the impression it is trying to leave, if the plant hadn't closed he would still have health benefits after his wife left her job. So the lack of health benefits is due to two factors, of which the ad only cares about one.

Not that I've seen the ad or care in the slightest of course.

Re:Misleading ads? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40930083)

It's all a lie and you should care, US citizen or not. Obama has power over far too much of this planet and whereever that is you are I guarantee you that impacts you to some degree. You want a liar running your life and stealing your money huh? Wake up.

1) the wife worked for an entirely different company and she was employed with health insurance at the time this man's company when under
2) the wife was injured and had to quit work which means she would likely been given a grace period on her policy for about 30 days
3) both of these people would have been able to be covered by COBRA if they couldn’t get other insurance (but as we know, he did have a policy on his next job..couldn’t afford to add his wife is misleading. Spouses are generally covered automatically at only a slightly higher premium
4) The company in question was going under and INVITED Bane in to save the business. Bane did what it could and put many millions of dollars into the company but these type business' were going broke all over the country (and world). Some companies are not saveable.
5) Romney was gone many years before this and was governor of Ma when the wife was diagnosed and died
6) His wife DID receive health care. She was never denied treatment. They didnt have insurance..that's entirely different.

Re:Misleading ads? (1)

icebraining (1313345) | more than 2 years ago | (#40930659)

You want a liar running your life and stealing your money huh?

No, but I'm afraid we only get to choose humans for the position.

Re:Misleading ads? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40930023)

Right. And good ol' Romney wouldn't have gotten where he is without his daddy's name and money. It's funny how you rabid partisans forget, or just don't see, the stuff that derails your jingoistic arguments.

These issues are complex, complicated problems and, regardless of what $TALKRADIOMOUTH says, the solutions cannot be explained in a sound bite to anyone but an uneducated fool.

A corporation's overarching goal is to maximize ROI on stockholder's equity. Any corporate officer who ignores that fact violates his/her fiduciary responsibility and deserves to become unemployed. So, look to corporations for investment performance, but don't expect high-minded moral guidance from them.

The demographic studies that show the largest concentration of rabid right-wingers come from the areas with with worst education levels is especially telling, ya know? Only a grade school dropout would buy the argument that a country can continue to spend more than it takes in forever.

But, never mind that! Let's elect Romney! Spend more on defense! Cut taxes! Let the next guy clean up the mess!

Re:Misleading ads? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40930095)

Yes, just like the leftist, when there is no substance to add attack the person, call in class warfare and generally call na-na-na-na-na-na.

Screw you lying leftist scumbag, you and your man are losing and you are scared.

Now shut up, I asked you a question.

Address the question or brand yourself a fool. Obama and his minions, handlers and money men are lying thieving scoundrels.

How can you people possibly sleep at night if you do not realize this?

Wake up people, vote these lying scumbags out of office and away from spending more of our money.

Re:Misleading ads? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40930519)

Screw you, you lying, rightist, scumbag. You and your silver-spoon candidate won't win and you're scared shitless that you'll look like the under-educated fool you are.

Now, shut up, I asked you a question.

Address the question about Mitt and his unearned money or prove you rabid, noisy shills are as stupid as you seem.

How can you sleep at night, knowing as you do that you're just contributing to the escalation of an oligarchy to which you will never belong?

You're a tool, moron. Too bad you don't have the sense to realize it.

Dear Rogers (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40929829)

(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:Dear Rogers (0)

kayditty (641006) | more than 2 years ago | (#40930385)

not posting as "AC" because no one cares--myself included. you could be right. or perhaps Rogers just really wishes they hadn't the misfortune of being born in an utter shit-hole.

this actually makes sense (1, Insightful)

circletimessquare (444983) | more than 2 years ago | (#40929849)

in that a person can lie, and this is protected speech

so maybe we need to more forcefully commit to the notion that a corporation is NOT a person and does NOT deserve the same protections

in the USA, anonymous trolls lying and making shit up is analogous to corporations and rich people committing secret soft money to untraceable political actions. when will we have our first scandal where Chinese money tinkers with American politics in this way? so why exactly is it allowed that rich people and corporations can influence our politics anonymously, without have to disclose the sources and expenditures?

secret corporate cash is the greatest threat to the health of our democracies

Re:this actually makes sense (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | more than 2 years ago | (#40929925)

secret corporate cash is the greatest threat to the health of our democracies

Bullshit.. The biggest threat to the health of our democracies are the gullible idiot voters who don't properly vet the people they vote for. There's no law that requires you to vote for bling.

Re:this actually makes sense (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40930129)

Voting one way or another cant save you from corporations and their greed. Nice try though. False equivalencies are fun!

Re:this actually makes sense (2)

MickyTheIdiot (1032226) | more than 2 years ago | (#40929933)

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.

Re:this actually makes sense (2)

dkf (304284) | more than 2 years ago | (#40930119)

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.

Re:this actually makes sense (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40930051)

Somewhat relevant - the department of commerce for Nova Scotia created a hoax phone ad known as the Pomegranate phone [pomegranatephone.com] . False ads as satire should be ok.

Re:this actually makes sense (3, Informative)

Hatta (162192) | more than 2 years ago | (#40930203)

in that a person can lie, and this is protected speech

A lie is protected speech. A lie for profit is fraud.

Re:this actually makes sense (1)

Attila Dimedici (1036002) | more than 2 years ago | (#40930297)

A person can lie and that is protected speech. However, a person cannot commit fraud by telling someone that they will provide them with a service and then no provide that service. In this case, Rogers was offering the service of being "more reliable and suffering fewer dropped calls" than their competition. They failed to deliver this service. That means they were committing fraud. In this case the government is calling that fraud "deceptive advertising".

fUZZY kITTEH (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40929879)

i THINK tHE nEW CoRPoRatION OuGHT TO BE A fUzzY kITTEH
kIttEh hAs Always Been A bIg PArt Of tHE CorPoRATIon,
lOOK AT All thAT fUr In bETwEen ThE kEyS

tHEN iF yOu pOSt YoUR LieS
bLAMe it On KItteH

More about Obama lies (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40929885)

"Turns out Soptic’s wife still had her own insurance after he lost his job. She stopped working as a result of an accident:"
Is there a hospital in the United States that turns away a patient. No, it is against the law. So we have on the surface one Pinocchio; the second Pinocchio is they did not lose their insurance due to the plant closing, she still had hers. The third Pinocchio is the time frame of Mitt leaving the company seven years before her cancer was diagnosed. The fourth Pinocchio is no disclosure that the union was responsible for the plant closing. They were asked to take cut-backs in benefits and pensions and refused that made the company costs too heavy to carry and would extend their loses. The fifth Pinocchio may be legal, Burton was a spokesman for Obama until a short time ago. the campaign cannot coordinate with the PAC but, only a short time ago (weeks) I saw Burton on TV acting as a surrogate speaker as has Gibbs. If there is daylight between Burton, Gibbs Axelgrease and Obama it is as thin as Obama's resume.
These spurious attacks are obvious to the point of being slanderous, of what value is winning an election if you can't lead? So the biggest Pinocchio of all is the Obama declaration that he is president of all of Americans. How long can the media keep kissing Obama's butt and be perceived as having value?

Re:More about Obama lies (1)

RatPh!nk (216977) | more than 2 years ago | (#40930041)

Is there a hospital in the United States that turns away a patient. No, it is against the law.

They are required under EMTALA to provide "emergency" care. Outside a few oncological emergencies there are very few cancer related things that will get you treated in the emergency room. You will not get chemotherapy, likely, if you don't have insurance unless you can convince the hospital to give you some charity care.

Re:More about Obama lies (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40930185)

And this then constitutes supportive evidence that the Obama ad is truthful?

Not one damn bit.

Obama is a liar, repeat after me. Obama is a liar and wants to steal your money - all of it, no matter how much or little you make.

Obama is a liar
Obama is a liar
Obama is a liar
Obama is a liar

Oh and BTW EMTALA is one of the main reasons healthcare costs in this country have skyrocketed and people from all countries and coming here for this care like lemmings.

Who do we have to thank for this wonderful law?

Re:More about Obama lies (1, Insightful)

MickyTheIdiot (1032226) | more than 2 years ago | (#40930249)

And you're fine with the dozens of claims Romney has said and shown in a matter of hours to be incorrect of absolutely misleading?

Go away. Really.. shut up and go away.

Re:More about Obama lies (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40930309)

No, you go away. Put up or shut up, citations please.

"dozens of claims Romney has said and shown in a matter of hours to be incorrect of absolutely misleading"

Re:More about Obama lies (1)

mcvos (645701) | more than 2 years ago | (#40930483)

So Obama's campaign has been caught with a lie? Has Romney been caught with a truth yet?

Re:More about Obama lies (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40930557)

Put up or shut up jerk, I see lots of accusations and the proof is all against Obama, citations please, and I expect to see dozens and fast.

Canada? Get it to the Human RIghts Commission! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40929913)

Hmmm, if Rogers could rebrand themselves in such a way at to make their ads attacks on those evil white European males, they could get away with saying anything.

Anyone complains they could take it to the Human Rights Commission.

Canada? (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | more than 2 years ago | (#40929953)

They don't have any freedom of speech rights specified in their constitution. Only the Americans have that. Everybody else's all say, "Void where prohibited by law".

Re:Canada? (1)

arthurpaliden (939626) | more than 2 years ago | (#40930017)

Free speech in the US. Really try saying 'f*ck' on prime time television.

Re:Canada? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40930629)

Try saying anything with an asterisk in it.

Re:Canada? (1)

MickyTheIdiot (1032226) | more than 2 years ago | (#40930111)

Well... since in the U.S. Speech is now equated to money then speech is only for those who pay for it.

That's a violation of at least two definitions of the word "free."

Does this freedom even apply to corporations? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40929979)

In most countries, including the US and Canada, the freedom of speech is declared by law and convention as a right possessed by "man", "every citizen" or "the people". There is no mention of corporations.

Re:Does this freedom even apply to corporations? (1)

MickyTheIdiot (1032226) | more than 2 years ago | (#40930145)

When corporations are treated as persons under the law it's not a huge jump to give them free speech rights.

That's essentially what Citizens United does. Money equates to speech rights. Legal corporate persons have freedom of speech.

It goes against at least a half dozen tenets that one can find in the Federalist papers, but there you go.

Fraud Vs. Freedom (3, Insightful)

Darkness404 (1287218) | more than 2 years ago | (#40930037)

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).

Re:Fraud Vs. Freedom (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40930405)

I don't know about Canada, but where I live corporations are not allowed to claim to be "the best" but have to either make very specific claims or refer to statistics collected by a third party.

There's only one reasonable and measured response (1)

Chrisq (894406) | more than 2 years ago | (#40930055)

There's only one reasonable and measured response to this. Isn't there? [limitstogrowth.org]

Why not? Politicians do it all the time (1)

schwit1 (797399) | more than 2 years ago | (#40930097)

Vote for me and I'll do this ...
My opponent is bad because ...

uh, of course it does. (1)

kayditty (641006) | more than 2 years ago | (#40930299)

why wouldn't it? holy crap. the sensationalism in that title.. the obvious political slant coloured with righteous indignation. it makes me feel en garde, as if I'm being trolled, and sometimes I may be, but really I'm not, because it seems most people actually think the way the headline implies. people want the government to take control of everything. 10 trillion new laws a month, or get out of Washington. you're not doing your job!

holy god, man. it's like I like in bizarro-land. it really, truly is. is everyone insane?

Another reason I am happy I don't live in Canada (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40930585)

It's a second-class joke of a country.

Re:Another reason I am happy I don't live in Canad (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40930641)

And exactly what country do you live in that's so much better?
Every other country is just as much a joke if not more.
Especially so if you live in America, that country is the biggest joke of them all.

*sigh* (1)

JustAnotherIdiot (1980292) | more than 2 years ago | (#40930615)

Freedom of speech != Freedom from consequences.

Lie - but accept the consequences, (3, Interesting)

AlecC (512609) | more than 2 years ago | (#40930679)

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.

Rogers is a monster (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40930719)

At this point, this company is incapable of any real competition. It's pretty much a given, that any service they offer will be inefficient, unreliable and overpriced.
This is a company that uses Amdocs [amdocs.com] to do their billing. I actually worked in this little hell-hole for a while last year and got the opportunity to see first hand the "cutting edge technology" a-la Rogers: ridiculously archaic and notoriously unreliable.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?