Wow France....Just Stop It

Azelma · **Posted:** Wed Jun 08, 2011 5:23 pm

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/80bea ... nt-page-1/

Quote:

Radio and television broadcasters in France must soon abandon self-promoting messages like, “Follow us on Facebook and Twitter.” The French equivalent of the FCC, the Conseil Supérieur de l’Audiovisuel (CSA), is banning the mention of specific social-networking sites on the radio or TV. While this rule applies to all online social networks, the ruling was directed at the juggernauts Facebook and Twitter.

http://news.accuracast.com/social-media ... and-radio/

Quote:

A recent ruling passed in France bans the use of the words Facebook and Twitter on National TV and radio channels.

The ruling indicates that the media can still talk about these sites without actually naming them. In other words, they can use general terms such as ‘social networks’ but not the actual names of the network concerned.

So you can no longer say Facebook or Twitter on the air in France unless the news story is actually about Facebook or Twitter.

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL

Usdk · **Posted:** Wed Jun 08, 2011 5:26 pm

I guess they didn't copy our first amendment to their constitution.

Aestu · **Posted:** Wed Jun 08, 2011 5:56 pm

In the EU, they can apparently tell you to stop planting a certain variety of a plant because "the authorities" have decided a particular variety has fallen out of favor, or to stop producing a certain food because a certain region has a monopoly on it.

The US has nothing on the EU when it comes to bureaucratic tyranny.

Not that we don't have our own uniquely American sort of bureaucratic tyranny.

In this case, though, what's really at work is French jealousy that the Americans have once again created something popular.

Weena · **Posted:** Wed Jun 08, 2011 6:12 pm

Days, maybe even a week behind.

It's due to a law from early to mid 90's that doesn't allow the news to promote or use product placement.

I can understand the reasoning, but it doesn't make it any less silly.

Aestu · **Posted:** Wed Jun 08, 2011 6:14 pm

I agree 100% in principle but I honestly don't believe they'd care if Facebook was French.

Meowth · **Posted:** Wed Jun 08, 2011 7:08 pm

Azelma wrote:

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/80beats/2011/06/08/france-orders-broadcasters-to-un-like-facebook-unfollow-twitter/comment-page-1/

Quote:

Radio and television broadcasters in France must soon abandon self-promoting messages like, “Follow us on Facebook and Twitter.” The French equivalent of the FCC, the Conseil Supérieur de l’Audiovisuel (CSA), is banning the mention of specific social-networking sites on the radio or TV. While this rule applies to all online social networks, the ruling was directed at the juggernauts Facebook and Twitter.

http://news.accuracast.com/social-media ... and-radio/

Quote:

A recent ruling passed in France bans the use of the words Facebook and Twitter on National TV and radio channels.

The ruling indicates that the media can still talk about these sites without actually naming them. In other words, they can use general terms such as ‘social networks’ but not the actual names of the network concerned.

So you can no longer say Facebook or Twitter on the air in France unless the news story is actually about Facebook or Twitter.

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL

Nothing of value was lost and not a single fuck was given.

Meowth · **Posted:** Wed Jun 08, 2011 8:26 pm

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news ... stress.ars

Aestu · **Posted:** Wed Jun 08, 2011 8:28 pm

I think that the state of society today proves the need for censorship.

Yuratuhl · **Posted:** Wed Jun 08, 2011 9:33 pm

It's as Weena said. They're not allowed to advertise themselves like that on the air, because there's very specific rules regarding ads.

And yes USD, speech is slightly less "free" over there.

incidentally, source is weeks behind.

Mns · **Posted:** Wed Jun 08, 2011 11:54 pm

Aestu wrote:

In the EU, they can apparently tell you to stop planting a certain variety of a plant because "the authorities" have decided a particular variety has fallen out of favor, or to stop producing a certain food because a certain region has a monopoly on it.

They actually care about their food in Europe, so I'm not surprised that they'll ban certain foods. The best example I can think of is how Champagne is a region in France and they don't want the prestige that they've worked for for hundreds of years get ruined because someone decides to mix club soda with grape juice, let it ferment, and call it champagne.

Tehra · **Posted:** Wed Jun 08, 2011 11:56 pm

Mns wrote:

Aestu wrote:

In the EU, they can apparently tell you to stop planting a certain variety of a plant because "the authorities" have decided a particular variety has fallen out of favor, or to stop producing a certain food because a certain region has a monopoly on it.

They actually care about their food in Europe, so I'm not surprised that they'll ban certain foods. The best example I can think of is how Champagne is a region in France and they don't want the prestige that they've worked for for hundreds of years get ruined because someone decides to mix club soda with grape juice, let it ferment, and call it champagne.

aka, "we have nothing else of merit, and everyone else can make this shit too, but we call dibs on the name"

see: feta.

Mns · **Posted:** Thu Jun 09, 2011 12:03 am

Names mean a lot, especially when you're talking about french wine, german/belgian beer, or any of the other major food hallmarks of a region. When I buy a Belgian Trappist Ale, I expect an incredibly high quality product and thanks to laws regarding what can and can't be called "trappist" ales, I'm never swindled by some megacorp stuffing its hand in a monastery's ass as it brews the beer in Kansas.

Its not their fault that people started calling sparkling white wine Champagne before copyrights were invented.

Usdk · **Posted:** Thu Jun 09, 2011 12:18 am

that's a legitimate concern, tbh.

Aestu · **Posted:** Thu Jun 09, 2011 12:22 am

Tehra wrote:

aka, "we have nothing else of merit, and everyone else can make this shit too, but we call dibs on the name"
see: feta.

This.

Also see: California wine and cheese

Usdk wrote:

that's a legitimate concern, tbh.

Why? If their shit is so good, let it sell itself. That's what brand names are for. If they need a monopoly on the product itself it's because they're not better than their competitors.

Mns · **Posted:** Thu Jun 09, 2011 12:38 am

Aestu wrote:

If they need a monopoly on the product itself it's because they're not better than their competitors.

There's a major difference between the original and their imitators but the quality of the product isn't the point. Its hard to explain because people in the states tend to shovel things down their mouths without caring about it.

Bucket Guild | FUBU BH Forums

Wow France....Just Stop It

Who is online