Grownups say the darndest things
Americans love the First Amendment. But what happens when it intersects blogging, Twitter and other social media? A morning jaunt that began with an industry newsletter with the headline "ValueClick whacked over email; commentors gleeful," took me on a brief, but crazy ride.
First, a no doubt, well meaning, Media Development Manager at ValueClick (no, I won't mention his name and create yet another Search result for his faux pas) was publicly chastised by Jeremy Schoemaker on his ShoeMoney blog, and on his Twitter account. He called a sales email "spam" and implied it was in violation of the Canned Spam Act, simply because the sender made a copy and paste mistake and did not delete a previous form email to another prospective client. The onslaught of comments further raked the guy over the coals. Most of us understand that the Canned Spam Act is for commercial emailers, not poor sales schlubs trying to do their job. Also, the fact that it was a cut and paste error implies that the solicitations were being sent individually, not as a mass email anyway. If we're going to blast others for spam, (no pun intended) let's at least understand our definitions.
From here, I was led to another article, "Virgin sues Adrants over fake Hudson River crash ad." The ad, which turned out to be fake, said, "The Hudson River Crash: Just one more reason to fly Virgin." The blog post even mentions that the source of the print was suspect, but what the heck. It's just a blog, right? And from AdRants, after all, already known for its over the top commentary on advertisements. Is this libel, or simply a joke in poor taste gone bad?
From there, I wound up back at the ShoeMoney blog, and out of curiosity scrolled through some other posts, and came across a Fox news video outing the owner of the Lafayette French Pastry shop in New York. The bakery, said to be a celebrity favorite and used in "Sex and the City" is selling a chocolate cookie called "drunken negro heads." The baker says he has the right to name his pastries however he sees fit, but critics believe he's crossed the line between freedom of expression and blatant racism. Oddly, critics and journalists alike have failed to critique the actual cookie. I'm just wondering if the baker thought its wonderful taste warranted his flagrant disregard for political correctness? And Fox News – responsible journalism, or free advertising for the bakery?
By writing this, am I adding to the publicity cycles of things that should never have made headlines in the first place? Or simply expressing an opinion on the state of social networking? Regardless, only time will tell if court intervention will propagate new legislation on our latest communication phenomenon.
Or, perhaps the economic slump has simply resulted in people having too much time on their hands? Nah, it's always been this way.
– Layne Salter
