Say Anything Blog

On the face of it these new FTC guidelines requiring bloggers to disclose any payments or gifts they received for payments seems like a good idea, but the door it opens doesn’t lead to a good place for online free speech.

PHILADELPHIA (AP)—The Federal Trade Commission will require bloggers to clearly disclose any freebies or payments they get from companies for reviewing their products.

It is the first time since 1980 that the commission has revised its guidelines on endorsements and testimonials, and the first time the rules have covered bloggers.

But the commission stopped short Monday of specifying how bloggers must disclose any conflicts of interest.

The FTC said its commissioners voted 4-0 to approve the final guidelines, which had been expected. Penalties include up to $11,000 in fines per violation.

So what if you’re an anonymous blogger who posts a review of a book?  Whistler, my co-blogger here on Say Anything, is anonymous.  What if he read Glenn Beck’s new book and posted a review of it here on the blog.  How could he comply with the FTC’s guidelines without divulging his identity?

What’s more, this sets the stage for future burdensome disclosure requirements.  What if, for instance, I wrote a post in favor of a federal candidate and because of that post Google began displaying ads for that candidate on the post?  Would I have to disclose the income from those ads specifically?  And, again, what if it were an anonymous blogger who wrote the post?  Would they have to disclose their identity to comply?

Disclosure requirements like these might be easy to comply with for professional, full-time bloggers.  But what has always made blogging unique isn’t that it’s a new format for the same old media elite to write in.  What’s made blogging unique is that it has opened up a potential audience of millions for even the most amateur of amateurs.  Heaping new government regulations onto the back of people who are writing about politics or their favorite books, etc. in their free time is a good way to shut those people down out of fear of getting fined.

Which might actually be the unstated objective of this move.