In questo post discuterò alcuni bizzarri aspetti dell'attuale legislazione, confrontandola con il mio DDL.
Un rapido confronto con le norme sulla pubblicità ingannevole
Le norme sulla pubblicità ingannevole sono contenute all'interno del Codice del Consumo ( CDC nel seguito). Di seguito, faccio un sintetico confronto tra il DDL ed il sottoinsieme di norme relative alla pubblicità ingannevole contenute nel CDC.
Norme sulla pubblicità ingannevole
Norme sulla pubblicità ingannevole
OBIETTIVI
Tutelare la capacita' del consumatore di prendere una decisione consapevole, evitando che egli sia indotto ad assumere una decisione di natura
business that would otherwise have taken
SCOPE
The rules apply to any person pursuing an activity 'trade, business, craft or professional
and with regard to any work they put in place to promote a product
TYPES OF CRIMES
Administrative Offences.
DDL anticiarlatani
OBJECTIVES
Protecting the health, wealth, self-determination of the person, culture, avoiding the dissemination of scientifically unsubstantiated claims and socially dangerous.
SCOPE
The rules apply to anyone who spreads messages addressed individual and the public, to promote an object or 'activity or practice, even outside of a' business, professional, etc. ...
TYPES OF CRIMES
Criminal offenses
As shown, the DDL is:
OBIETTIVI
Tutelare la capacita' del consumatore di prendere una decisione consapevole, evitando che egli sia indotto ad assumere una decisione di natura
business that would otherwise have taken
SCOPE
The rules apply to any person pursuing an activity 'trade, business, craft or professional
and with regard to any work they put in place to promote a product
TYPES OF CRIMES
Administrative Offences.
DDL anticiarlatani
OBJECTIVES
Protecting the health, wealth, self-determination of the person, culture, avoiding the dissemination of scientifically unsubstantiated claims and socially dangerous.
SCOPE
The rules apply to anyone who spreads messages addressed individual and the public, to promote an object or 'activity or practice, even outside of a' business, professional, etc. ...
TYPES OF CRIMES
Criminal offenses
As shown, the DDL is:
- more generally, as the scope of : the bill is not limited only to the commercial sector, therefore, is covered as a special case
- different, on the form of statements considered illegal : The bill affects the scientifically unfounded claims.
The set of scientifically unfounded allegations fact, intersects with that of misleading statements to this effect:
- are scientifically unfounded claims that are misleading (I sell machine that cures cancer)
- are scientifically unfounded statements but are not misleading (I sell a horoscope)
- scientifically based but there are statements that are misleading (I say to sell a three-speed hair dryer, while it has only one)
Some similarities, but with substantial differences
The similarities are there. For example, Art. 21 of the Consumer Code, lists among the items of information that can be misleading:
"the main features of the product, which [...] fitness for purpose or the results [...] to be expected from the use of the product [...]"
and this is similar to the concept of "effective scientifically" defined from 'art. 1, letter f). similar but not identical . The concept of "scientifically effective, is milder but more general in scope (like all the rest of the DDL). The difference is that the DDL has as its primary purpose the protection of the scientific substantiation of claims and so the fair trade, which is more relevant to the CDC.
Ad example, suppose a message advertising a professional potato peeler manual presenting it as a good product. Suppose further that the peeler is a regular vegetable peeler, but quality so bad that after 3 or 4 potatoes peeled, it will be broken systematically. According to the CDC, it would probably be the advertisement that is misleading, since it has led to buying a chef for his restaurant, but the product proved to be poor even for domestic use. The bill, however, does not include any violation. In fact, the item sold is so poor, but say that it is able to peel potatoes is scientifically false. At the limit, even if it were to break while a potato peeler peel the potato first, however, does not infringe the DDL. The concept is: a blade mounted on a plastic frame may, according to known scientific laws, peel a potato? The answer is yes. Everything else (as many as you can peel before it breaks? How long does it take to peel a potato? E 'convenience? What risk is there to cut? ... Etc) are matters outside the issue "in principle", which concerns DDL and become more properly in appearance "commercial" covered by the CDC.
A closer affinity, we find in art. 23 of the CDC, which are listed explicitly recognized as deceptive practices, without further investigation. Among these, we find:
r) state that products are able to facilitate winning in games of chance;
s) state, the false that a product has the ability 'to cure illnesses, dysfunction or malformations
These practices are laid down in Article DDL. 2, b) and c).
The first observation is that in the case of games based on luck, the CDC does not specify (as it does in the case of curative products) the words "contrary to the true " because the legislature rightly gives to assume that if a game is based on luck is by definition impossible in any way increase the chances of winning.
The second observation, most important, is its use of the words "contrary to the truth" in the letter s). This formulation, discharge the burden on the Antitrust Authority Board to decide, case by case, what is "contrary to the truth" and what not. It makes no assumption about products or practices that could be considered a priori ineffective. Such a distinction, although (obviously) not exhaustive, but is made by the DLL art. 2, letters a) and c). All cases not foreseen by art. 2, are analyzed by the provisions of art. 4. Moreover, while the CDC provides no basis on which the committee should decide the Antitrust Authority, the DDL defines clearly the criteria in Art. 1 d) and Art. 4.
Pilate said, "I wash my hands" ... Seawater
CDC's approach might seem more appropriate (ie: we see from time to time, make no a priori assumption), but it is actually a buck Pilate that the legislature is on the shoulders of the Committee, even though they should take responsibility for already established by regulations if the scientific method is or is not the cultural heritage of the country . It will be said that the application of scientific method is only sent to the study of the case by the Committee. This is partly true but consider che:
The deleterious effects of the approach Pilate, seen for example in the case of ' homeopathy. Not a clear statement of the principle of scientific justification for a cure, brings our country to the following absurd and ambiguous situation.
A closer affinity, we find in art. 23 of the CDC, which are listed explicitly recognized as deceptive practices, without further investigation. Among these, we find:
r) state that products are able to facilitate winning in games of chance;
s) state, the false that a product has the ability 'to cure illnesses, dysfunction or malformations
These practices are laid down in Article DDL. 2, b) and c).
The first observation is that in the case of games based on luck, the CDC does not specify (as it does in the case of curative products) the words "contrary to the true " because the legislature rightly gives to assume that if a game is based on luck is by definition impossible in any way increase the chances of winning.
The second observation, most important, is its use of the words "contrary to the truth" in the letter s). This formulation, discharge the burden on the Antitrust Authority Board to decide, case by case, what is "contrary to the truth" and what not. It makes no assumption about products or practices that could be considered a priori ineffective. Such a distinction, although (obviously) not exhaustive, but is made by the DLL art. 2, letters a) and c). All cases not foreseen by art. 2, are analyzed by the provisions of art. 4. Moreover, while the CDC provides no basis on which the committee should decide the Antitrust Authority, the DDL defines clearly the criteria in Art. 1 d) and Art. 4.
Pilate said, "I wash my hands" ... Seawater
CDC's approach might seem more appropriate (ie: we see from time to time, make no a priori assumption), but it is actually a buck Pilate that the legislature is on the shoulders of the Committee, even though they should take responsibility for already established by regulations if the scientific method is or is not the cultural heritage of the country . It will be said that the application of scientific method is only sent to the study of the case by the Committee. This is partly true but consider che:
- spostare l'applicazione di un principio dalla fase normativa a quella applicativa, rende tutto meno chiaro, poiché c'è più margine per l'arbitrarietà dei giudici e ci si affida alla maggiore variabilità della giurisprudenza rispetto alla certezza della norma
- dover analizzare ogni volta come casi speciali, tutti i casi rientranti in alcune categorie che potrebbero invece essere definite a priori, significa moltiplicare inutilmente il lavoro della commissione e quindi ritardare le sentenze (cosa di cui certamente non abbiamo bisogno)
The deleterious effects of the approach Pilate, seen for example in the case of ' homeopathy. Not a clear statement of the principle of scientific justification for a cure, brings our country to the following absurd and ambiguous situation.
According to Decree No 219 April 24, 2006, Art. 85, paragraph 2, letter a), the packaging of homeopathic there must be written, " Homeopathic, so without approved therapeutic indications " but at the same time, the region of Tuscany reimbursed with public funds (Resolution 655 of 20 ° GRN / 06/2005) buyers medicinali omeopatici. Questo significa che in Italia, consapevolmente, si usano soldi pubblici per rimborsare chi acquista acqua al prezzo di 360 € al litro con l'illusione di curarsi. Che senso ha tutto ciò? Ci si decida: o un prodotto ha indicazioni terapeutiche approvate e quindi, si può o meno decidere di rimborsarlo, oppure, se si ritiene che sia acqua fresca, non si può decidere di rimborsarne l'acquisto con soldi pubblici! Se esistesse una norma chiara e di natura generale, a livello nazionale, questo non sarebbe possibile.
Regolamento televisivo: schizofrenia legislativa e psicologia Social DIY
Another example of ambiguous legislation, we have analyzed the "Regulations on radio and television advertising and teleshopping" issued by AGCOM.
That regulation, mind you, does not, but "regulating" the broadcasting of programs where services are sold on astrology, and similar services cartomazia predictions for games based on luck. With regard to these programs, art. 5 ter, paragraph 2, letters a) and b), is said to them:
a) must not mislead the public, even by omission, ambiguity or exaggeration, the content and effects of the goods or services;
b) should avoid all forms of exploitation of superstition, credulity or fear, in particular the categories of people most vulnerable psychologically.
Sorry but ... art. 23 of the CDC, did not prohibit all advertising of predictions for the games based on luck? And someone, please, I can explain how it can advertise a play called winning the lottery, " not mislead the public " and without using both hands " superstition and credulity? What is this if not schizophrenia legislation or, if you will, pure and simple contradiction? But the bedlam
legislation sets no limits to his twisted logic. Paragraph 3 of that article reads:
3. The broadcasts referred to in paragraph 1 may not be transmitted in time slots between 7:00 and 23:00.
understanding that the CDC to prevent it in every case, the legislature could explain the meaning of this rule? The legislature, by chance, the goats did not have recruitment programs to treat such a porn movie or a horror or violent films? Has pointed out, the sheep: Well, because these things are "inappropriate", the pass at night when they sleep .... i.. Here, what we get instead of dots? In the case of film porn or violent, "children" there is good, it makes sense, since it is generally true that the children sleep at night and it is true that they do not have the means to decode film like that. But in the case of astrology and play winning, what enters the children? Have you ever seen a kid playing the lottery or to decide what game to play according to the horoscope? Not me. I do not think that among the victims of charlatans there are twelve years old! It seems clear that age is not the discriminating factor between those who are affected or not by certain messages, but the importance of rationality has the personality of an individual. So, where is it written, of grace, which the gullible go to bed at 23.00 while the skeptics are night owls, so everyone is safe? Who do you plan to protect the strip during the day, from 7.00 to 23.00? And, conversely, it is believed that from 23.00 to 7.00 there is only a public immune watching TV? Sell \u200b\u200ba lot like winning the bet, it's a bestiality from 0 to 24, every day of the year, and whoever the buyer! This rule, as well as being a sign of sheer stupidity, is probably the result of the ridiculous attempt to reconcile the irreconcilable to protect vested interests (publishers television).
My conclusion is that we need a rule that makes clearly ahead, stating that what has no objective meaning, can not be exploited in any way, ever. It would follow that all the various codes and regulations would be deprived of such contradictions.
Regolamento televisivo: schizofrenia legislativa e psicologia Social DIY
Another example of ambiguous legislation, we have analyzed the "Regulations on radio and television advertising and teleshopping" issued by AGCOM.
That regulation, mind you, does not, but "regulating" the broadcasting of programs where services are sold on astrology, and similar services cartomazia predictions for games based on luck. With regard to these programs, art. 5 ter, paragraph 2, letters a) and b), is said to them:
a) must not mislead the public, even by omission, ambiguity or exaggeration, the content and effects of the goods or services;
b) should avoid all forms of exploitation of superstition, credulity or fear, in particular the categories of people most vulnerable psychologically.
Sorry but ... art. 23 of the CDC, did not prohibit all advertising of predictions for the games based on luck? And someone, please, I can explain how it can advertise a play called winning the lottery, " not mislead the public " and without using both hands " superstition and credulity? What is this if not schizophrenia legislation or, if you will, pure and simple contradiction? But the bedlam
legislation sets no limits to his twisted logic. Paragraph 3 of that article reads:
3. The broadcasts referred to in paragraph 1 may not be transmitted in time slots between 7:00 and 23:00.
understanding that the CDC to prevent it in every case, the legislature could explain the meaning of this rule? The legislature, by chance, the goats did not have recruitment programs to treat such a porn movie or a horror or violent films? Has pointed out, the sheep: Well, because these things are "inappropriate", the pass at night when they sleep .... i.. Here, what we get instead of dots? In the case of film porn or violent, "children" there is good, it makes sense, since it is generally true that the children sleep at night and it is true that they do not have the means to decode film like that. But in the case of astrology and play winning, what enters the children? Have you ever seen a kid playing the lottery or to decide what game to play according to the horoscope? Not me. I do not think that among the victims of charlatans there are twelve years old! It seems clear that age is not the discriminating factor between those who are affected or not by certain messages, but the importance of rationality has the personality of an individual. So, where is it written, of grace, which the gullible go to bed at 23.00 while the skeptics are night owls, so everyone is safe? Who do you plan to protect the strip during the day, from 7.00 to 23.00? And, conversely, it is believed that from 23.00 to 7.00 there is only a public immune watching TV? Sell \u200b\u200ba lot like winning the bet, it's a bestiality from 0 to 24, every day of the year, and whoever the buyer! This rule, as well as being a sign of sheer stupidity, is probably the result of the ridiculous attempt to reconcile the irreconcilable to protect vested interests (publishers television).
My conclusion is that we need a rule that makes clearly ahead, stating that what has no objective meaning, can not be exploited in any way, ever. It would follow that all the various codes and regulations would be deprived of such contradictions.
0 comments:
Post a Comment