US Chamber Of Commerce: Communicating With Woman Whose Sad Story We Manipulated Is Harassment

from the um-no dept

You may recall that last week we had a post about a new propaganda campaign from the lobbying giant, the US Chamber of Commerce (who thrives off the fact that people falsely assume they’re the US Department of Commerce, rather than a private lobbying group). The video, in support of the terrible and dangerous PROTECT IP Act continues the favorite talking points of the dishonest supporters of that bill, which is to conflate the problem of fake (and potentially dangerous) drugs with copyright infringement. The two things are totally and completely different, but by tugging on your heart strings about someone who died from ingesting fake drugs, the US Chamber of Commerce (and other lobbyists and politicians) hopes to ram through the PROTECT IP Act, despite its myriad problems. In this case, the campaign involved a heart-string-pulling video from a woman talking about a friend of hers who had died after taking some counterfeit drugs that had lead in them.

Of course, the folks in the Techdirt community quickly pointed out numerous other problems with the propaganda campaign, including the fact that the “example” in the video took place in Canada, meaning that a US law wouldn’t have meant anything at all. Separately, and more importantly, it was pointed out that the Operation in Our Sites effort by ICE, which was the basis for PROTECT IP, has yet to target a single online drug site. They just use the scare factor of fake drugs to go after websites based on questionable reasons and evidence.

One of our regular commenters, Prometheefeu, suggested that the woman in the video might not know that she was being manipulated this way by the US Chamber of Commerce and suggested that the community here team up to draft a letter to explain why her friend’s tragic story is being exploited by the US Chamber of Commerce to support a law that’s really focused on an entirely different issue. Prometheefeu mentioned that he had found the woman’s address and phone number, but he did not give that information out. He just suggested that we write her a letter. He even explicitly told people not to harass (or, as he said, “prank/lulz”) the woman, noting (correctly) that this would make you a “counterproductive idiot.”

All of this is perfectly reasonable. Unless, of course, you’re the US Chamber of Commerce.

They called us and left a voicemail specifically calling out that comment, and saying that our commenter was calling for people to “harass” the woman in their video and asking us to delete the comment. Now, it seems that we’re all in agreement that harassing this woman would be idiotic. But, apparently the US Chamber of Commerce feels that writing a reasoned letter to someone to explain why the Chamber of Commerce is manipulating your story counts as “harassment.”

Now that strikes me as something of a double standard. After all, the Chamber of Commerce itself runs campaigns asking people to send “20,000 letters in 20 days” in order to flood Congress in support of certain bills. But, someone wants to draft a single letter to someone who appears in a ridiculously misleading US Chamber of Commerce video… and it’s harassment?

Filed Under: , , , ,
Companies: us chamber of commerce

Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “US Chamber Of Commerce: Communicating With Woman Whose Sad Story We Manipulated Is Harassment”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
40 Comments
Derek Kerton (profile) says:

Hypocrites

“…apparently the US Chamber of Commerce feels that writing a reasoned letter to someone to explain why the Chamber of Commerce is manipulating your story counts as “harassment.”

Apparently, the US Chamber of Commerce, at some point, reached out themselves, and contacted this woman. The also sent a film crew.

Why did they harass her so??!!!

out_of_the_blue says:

You wish to forcibly enlighten her.

Assumes she doesn’t know, and wouldn’t agree with COC if did know. She’s a private person, regardless of what COC is, so that DOES verge on harassment. I advise against it. — So that should spur you dolts to inflict your opinions on someone whom, it can’t be argued, DOES NOT WANT TO HEAR YOUR OPINION, if only because no one wishes a bunch of strangers to suddenly pop up and say what a fool and tool you are.

You people are really arrogant to even discuss it.

G Thompson (profile) says:

Re: You wish to forcibly enlighten her.

If she doesn’t know then she has a legal right to know that she is being used by the CoC, and if any person has a reasonable expectation that she doesn’t know then they have an ethical duty to inform her of this.

This is NOT harassment, next time look up the actual legal definition of harassment before you spout off and annoy my reading sense please.

Also note that intent plays a big part in harassment.

PrometheeFeu (profile) says:

Re: You wish to forcibly enlighten her.

I don’t think you read my comment and the link I gave on the original post. It pointed to the official website of her city where she is a member of the “Mayor Council”. To say that she is a private citizen is wrong if only just because of that.

Then there is the part where she shares her story with the whole world as propaganda for a bill in the house of representative. She has joined the public debate and is definitely fair game for a polite letter trying to explain to her that she is making a mistake. If she does not want to be part of the public debate, she shouldn’t go on the record telling her story to the world and pushing legislation.

As for forcible enlightenment, I don’t see how that is. Sending a letter to someone does not force them to read it or pay any attention to its content or reasoning. There is nothing arrogant about trying to converse with those on the other side of the aisle.

As it turns out no letter was sent by me. Nobody responded to my offer and I didn’t feel like sending a letter coming from me alone would have the effect I was hoping for.

Mike Masnick (profile) says:

Re: Re: You wish to forcibly enlighten her.

Then there is the part where she shares her story with the whole world as propaganda for a bill in the house of representative.

Agreed with your overall post, just wanted to make a minor clarification. The bill is currently in the Senate, not the House. The House version (which I’m hearing will be even worse) has not yet been introduced.

Rowan (profile) says:

She put her story on a political ad that was released across the internet for all to see. They didn’t coerce her into the video, whether she realized what she was doing or not she became a public figure when she tried to use her sob story to get legislation passed.

She has already given up some measure of privacy, and a few snail mail letters that are considered and articulate snail mail would violate what she’s got left.

G Thompson (profile) says:

I’d be quite willing to send any correspondence that the TD community created under my name to this woman, as long as it is verified that the addressee is the woman in question.

I’d love then the CoC, or USG to charge me with harassment then. especially since I live in another country from both the USA and Canada.

I’ll even place my full details with Mike with the order that he can release these to the CoC whenever they so request. I’m willing to state that their legal department would not like that scenario though.

Anonymous Coward says:

“who thrives off the fact that people falsely assume they’re the US Department of Commerce, rather than a private lobbying group”

And this, my friend, is the problem with U.S.A. How can we expect to elect reasonable politicians, that act in the public interest, when the public is so clueless.

While I disagree with overzealous trademark law, I think this is something IP trolls can somewhat reasonably use to argue in favor of stricter trademark law (something I oppose, btw).

PrometheeFeu (profile) says:

I must say that I am really glad this is happening on Techdirt. I trust Mike not to just hand over my info if the CoC rolls its muscles a bit.

I didn’t really expect better from the CoC. (Though I didn’t expect them to pay any attention to my comment.) I merely recommended we try to open dialog with someone whose tragic story they are abusing. As Mike pointed out, I specifically discouraged harassing that woman because I know that some people (mostly under 16) will wrongly think it’s a good idea. The CoC’s response was to try to get such reasonable speech censored. Nothing more consistent than using censorship in the promotion of a censorship bill I suppose.

Surely if the CoC has its way with PROTECT IP, sites like Techdirt will be taken down for commenters advocating open dialog instead of blind allegiance to the tenets of IP. I suppose Adam Smith was right, business organizations are always out to screw the public and their competitors.

Nicedoggy says:

The lesson to take from the US Chamber Of Commerce is this.

Draft the bills and sent it to congress, if you are not able to do so, you are not a player in the game of politics anymore and nobody cares about what you think.

That is how people counteract special interest groups like the US Chamber Of Commerce by doing exactly what they are doing but in a national scale.

There are no special interest groups that have national support from a majority of the population yet, the one that comes close to it, it is the Tea Party which is a loose group of smaller groups that is doing something similar collecting pledges from politicians and in return giving them financial and human resources, but they don’t make bills, they leave it to others to do the work and probably will be sorry for it.

sarah says:

But this part is false...

“it was pointed out that the Operation in Our Sites effort by ICE, which was the basis for PROTECT IP, has yet to target a single online drug site. “

That’s just not true:
http://www.ice.gov/news/releases/1107/110726washingtondc.htm

“One of ICE HSI’s most significant cases involved Houston resident Kevin Xu. Xu’s company sold counterfeit drugs online and distributed them throughout the United States and United Kingdom, primarily through the mail and courier services. Legitimate wholesalers began selling these counterfeit drugs, not realizing that the products weren’t the real thing. “

Mike Masnick (profile) says:

Re: But this part is false...


That’s just not true:
http://www.ice.gov/news/releases/1107/110726washingtondc.htm

“One of ICE HSI’s most significant cases involved Houston resident Kevin Xu. Xu’s company sold counterfeit drugs online and distributed them throughout the United States and United Kingdom, primarily through the mail and courier services. Legitimate wholesalers began selling these counterfeit drugs, not realizing that the products weren’t the real thing. “

Was that part of Operation In Our Sites? Doesn’t look like it…

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop »

Follow Techdirt

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

Ctrl-Alt-Speech

A weekly news podcast from
Mike Masnick & Ben Whitelaw

Subscribe now to Ctrl-Alt-Speech »
Techdirt Deals
Techdirt Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...
Loading...