I was reading a review of the New English Translation of the Septuagint reviewed by Craig of Simul Iustus et Peccator (or is that simul eustis? But I digress.) It’s a good review of an awesome translation. But I’m not writing this post to comment on someone commentary on a translation of a translation. No. That might get tedious. Instead, I’ll comment on the disclaimer to the comments on the commentary on a translation of a translation.
Here’s the disclaimer:
I received this book free from Oxford University Press. Providing me a free copy in no way guarantees a favorable review. The opinions expressed in this review are my own. I am disclosing this in accordance with the Federal Trade Commission’s 16 CFR, Part 255: “Guides Concerning the Use of Endorsements and Testimonials in Advertising.”
Now, it’s excellent that Craig is being fully transparent about his arrangement with the publishing house. He’s handling things ethically. And legally. And kudos to the feds for putting the legal code online–they’re being transparent too (at least on this issue). But what’s really strange is that there is a law that applies to blog reviews. I would imagine we could all do just fine and dandy without a law requiring a blogger to disclose this. Sure, I understand the ethical obligation. But a law? It makes my inner libertarian cringe. Perhaps the law is perfectly reasonable, but it seems a tad invasive of the federal government to regulate something as harmless as online book reviews. The US allows smoking, overeating, religious manipulation, binge drinking, cage fighting, and risky promiscuous encounters, and yet we need the feds to step in and stop us from getting mislead into buying a translation of the septuagint based on a compensated blog promotion? Gimme a break.
5 Comments
Ah yes, the Simul Eustis/Iustus…another of my famous typos. That’s what I get for trying to spell out a Latin phrase without having any Latin previously…and of course, Google was absolutely no help. Is it Eustis or Iustus or Justus…Anyways, that’s slightly off topic.
On to the disclaimer; I agree 100%. It’s totally ridiculous, but better safe than sorry.
I went to a high school that required three years of Latin, so I can assure you that “eustis” is either flat-out wrong or some sort of non-standard dialect form or colloquialism that you wouldn’t find in standard Latin.
As to the difference between Iustus and Justus, that’s a matter of style. If you dig original forms, you gotta go with Iustus. Early Latin had no J. Very late (post-1524) writers began differentiating the original latin i into the “vowel” i and the “consonant” j. So if you want to go with the usage of these later latin grammars and dictionaries, then it’s “Justus” and not “Iustus.”
Always better safe than sorry.
Thanks for the lesson in Latin. I eventually figured it out, thus the address is still Simul Eustis and the name is Simul Iustus. I really need to spring for a domain name…
The more laws and government control on speech, the better, I’d say.
if I were crazy
anyway, I think that for the most part, these laws were brought in for the mommy bloggers who were receiving tons of free gifts for ‘review’ without stating where they came from.
I’m not exactly sure why, but I get this inexplicable dreadfilled shudder whenever I see the phrase “mommy bloggers.” Not that mommies shouldn’t blog.
One Trackback
[...] since Craig of Simul Iustus et Peccator inadvertently alerted me to the FTC’s indirect interference with the blogging world, I’ve been seeing the FTC’s tyrannous hand in everyone’s [...]