Businessweek Archives

Holy Blogging Lawyers, Batman.


? CNET: "Blog Crazy" |

Main

| Kurt Andersen needs a three-hour sit-down with Jeff Jarvis ?

June 09, 2005

Holy Blogging Lawyers, Batman.

Heather Green

Is blogging advertising? That's the debate that is underway in Kentucky says Ben Cowgill's Legal Ethics Blog. If it is, ostensibly, Kentucky blogging lawyers would have to pay $50 in a filing fee per blog post to register the "advertisement" with the Kentucky Attorneys' Advertising Commission.

Overlawyered has a roundup of some bloggers weighing in on the debate.

Though this particular issue and how it relates to lawyers appears limited to Kentucky, BW writer Mike France, who forwarded this to us, is right is saying it's indicative of how business blogging will raise a wide variety of sticky issues as it spreads into new areas.

02:23 PM

advertising

TrackBack URL for this entry:

http://blogs.businessweek.com/mt/mt-tb.cgi/

Wow...I'm fairly new to blogging, but I'm not new to Free Speech! That has to be one of the most moronic, not to mention unconstitutional, legal cases I've ever heard about : )

Talk about a waste of tax-payer's money.

Posted by: Cary at June 10, 2005 12:56 AM

I was actually born and raised in Ky. If you think they're screwing this up, you should see what they've done to the school systems.

Posted by: Scott Randolph at June 10, 2005 09:28 AM

the smell of money attracts....just wait, if the taxman thinks he can get money from a blog, he/she will be knocking on the doors soon. A case could be made that blogs generate revenue and if that revenue is not reported or taxed, the taxman will want his/her due.

hard to prove, sure. however, likely, not uncommon.....

Posted by: jbr at June 10, 2005 09:59 AM

Check this Clay Shirky post out, below. It's relevant in that the kind of blogging activity he's mentioning - blogging about a Wikipedia page you've created yourself - might just be advertising. I don't know where this falls on the spectrum of, e.g., self-published books that Professor Volosk cites in the legal ethics blog Heather notes above, but it does complicate what appears to be a simple issue.

http://www.corante.com/many/archives/2005/06/09/wikipedia_authority_and_astroturf.php

Posted by: John Franklin at June 10, 2005 11:52 AM

I am the maintainer of the project Clay accuses in his article. The problem with Clay's article is the fact that he didn't bother to research it. The true situation is one person created a wikipedia article almost a month ago. The second person (who as far as I can tell is unrelated to the first) posted a slashdot article that shouldnt have made it past the moderators since it is really off-topic and the kicker is that neither of these people was solicited or associated with the project they were writing about.

Posted by: Ryan Quinn at June 12, 2005 07:09 PM


Burger King's Young Buns
LIMITED-TIME OFFER SUBSCRIBE NOW

(enter your email)
(enter up to 5 email addresses, separated by commas)

Max 250 characters

 
blog comments powered by Disqus