{"id":3887,"date":"2005-06-07T21:48:53","date_gmt":"2005-06-08T01:48:53","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/blogs.law.harvard.edu\/formerlyknownas\/2005\/06\/07\/kentucky-says-every-blawg-pos"},"modified":"2011-08-05T14:57:40","modified_gmt":"2011-08-05T18:57:40","slug":"kentucky-says-every-blawg-post-is-an-ad","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/ethicalesq\/2005\/06\/07\/kentucky-says-every-blawg-post-is-an-ad\/","title":{"rendered":"Kentucky says every blawg post is an ad"},"content":{"rendered":"

<\/a><\/p>\n

\n

Ben Cowgill is fighting<\/FONT><\/A> for the life of his <\/FONT>Legal Ethics Blog<\/FONT><\/EM><\/A> and<\/FONT> for the future <\/FONT><\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
of lawyer weblogs in the State of Kentucky.  As insane as it may sound to <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
the rest of the legal community — and especially to webloggers — the Kentucky<\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
Attorney’s Advertising Commission<\/FONT><\/A> has taken the position that a weblog is <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
an advertisement.  That’s particularly deadly to the existence of a KY weblog, <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
because <\/FONT>Rule 7.05<\/FONT><\/A> (b) <\/FONT><\/FONT>of the KY lawyers’ code requires a “A filing fee of $50.00 <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
for each advertisement<\/EM>” and for every change<\/EM> in the advertisement. [A pretty <\/FONT><\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
good excuse for turning off the Comments section!]<\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
<\/FONT> <\/DIV>
\n
\"dead At the core of this problem is <\/FONT>Rule 7.02<\/FONT><\/A> of the Kentucky Code <\/FONT>which <\/FONT><\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
says:<\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n

\n
7.02 “advertise or “advertisement” means to furnish any written, <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
printed or broadcast information or any other communication <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
containing an attorney’s name or other identifying information, <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
except [for instances not relevant to weblogs]. <\/FONT><\/DIV><\/BLOCKQUOTE>
\n
When <\/FONT>J. Craig Williams asserted<\/FONT><\/A> that blogging is advertising back in January,<\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
f\/k\/a<\/EM> warned<\/FONT><\/FONT><\/FONT><\/A> that something like this was going to happen:<\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n

\n

\n
Calling weblogs advertising can only confuse the meaning of <\/EM><\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
both terms.  As viewed by Craig in his post, I believe weblogs <\/EM><\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
should more precisely be deemed <\/EM><\/FONT>publicity<\/EM><\/FONT><\/A>, or <\/EM><\/FONT>self-promotion<\/EM><\/FONT><\/A>, <\/EM><\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
or <\/EM><\/FONT>public relations<\/EM><\/FONT><\/A>.  They are not “<\/EM><\/FONT>advertising<\/EM><\/FONT><\/A>” as the term<\/EM><\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
is commonly used, and  I can see nothing to gain from blurring <\/EM><\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
the concepts.  We don’t want to have to explain “Well, Ms. Bar <\/EM><\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
Counsel, my weblog is advertising according to MIPTC, but it’s <\/EM><\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
n<\/EM>ot <\/EM><\/FONT><\/FONT>advertising<\/EM><\/FONT><\/A> <\/EM><\/FONT>advertising<\/EM><\/FONT><\/A>.”  <\/EM><\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
<\/EM><\/FONT> <\/DIV>
\n
As Wikipedia succinctly <\/EM><\/FONT>says<\/EM><\/FONT><\/A>: “Advertising is the paid promotion <\/FONT><\/EM><\/DIV>
\n
of goods, services, companies and ideas, by an identified sponsor.”  <\/FONT><\/EM><\/DIV>
\n
Craig’s definition would make most of the words ever written or <\/FONT><\/EM><\/DIV>
\n
spoken “advertising.”<\/EM><\/FONT><\/DIV><\/DIV><\/BLOCKQUOTE>
\n