Censorship?

I'm sorry. I'm posting like there is no tomorrow tonight. But it's my first night off from my visitors (and, of course, I've got to score those 1,000 posts so I can get my vanity plates), anyway ...

I was just over at the Tamayo Family Vineyards website. When I went to the Contact Us page, I noted a caveat. They say that they by law cannot respond to in customers in Utah and Michigan. (See fer yerself!!). That's a bit exteme I would think. Does anyone have the skinny on this particular piece of governmental interference in our private lives?

[David M. Bueker]

Likely an oversimplification on their part, or possibly some arcane subpart of Utah/Michigan internet "safety" laws. No way to know for sure unless somebody digs deep in the regs.

I see that there are 13,100 hits on this sentence on Google this morning. Many wineries list the same caution, including big guys like Beringer.

I'll do a little digging and see what's going on.

Regards, Bob

[Robin Garr]

I see that there are 13,100 hits on this sentence on Google this morning. Many wineries list the same caution, including big guys like Beringer.

I'll do a little digging and see what's going on.

Bob, do you suppose it's akin to the fairly widespread practice by (mostly) larger wineries and liquor producers that require Internet visitors to attest to their age before visiting the site? No law requires them to do so, but it appears to have become an industry standard presumably in an excess of caution against being accused of marketing to underage consumers.

It's hard for me to see any reasonable restriction that could legally forbid citizens of Utah to READ a wine-related Website, so it seems likely that a similar excess of caution prevails.

Personally, I see this as another culture war issue and would much prefer to see the industry fight it than cave in, but I guess that's not going to happen ...

[James Roscoe]

I see that there are 13,100 hits on this sentence on Google this morning. Many wineries list the same caution, including big guys like Beringer.

I'll do a little digging and see what's going on.

Regards, Bob

Bob, this just seems plain silly to me. Could it really stand up against the First Ammendment? As you know I am fairly comfortably on the government's side on a lot of these type of issues, but this seems to be pretty cut and dry. I don't see how the free speech issue doesn't trump the issiue of under age drinking. They have anti-shipping laws to protect against the underage drinking. Where is the harm in answering questions? Even if the questions are about shipping?

They say that they by law cannot respond to in customers in Utah and Michigan. (See fer yerself!!). That's a bit exteme I would think. Does anyone have the skinny on this particular piece of governmental interference in our private lives?

There is certainly nothing in our Michigan laws that would prevent them from answering questions or sending newsletters into Michigan - or even shipping into Michigan if they secure a "direct shipping" license of modest cost. I suspect that some winery put that on their site some time ago as a result of misinformation, others copied it, and it has now attained some degree of credibility just because it is repeated. But I get lots of mailers and email announcements from California wineries.

I've written a quick e-mail to Tamayo. Maybe they will be helpful and tell us what's up?

They say that they by law cannot respond to in customers in Utah and Michigan. (See fer yerself!!).

That message is on a form with a box for the subject ('regarding') and the only two options available are Orders and Mailling list.

So, if they can't sell to those states, then they can't take orders and there's no point sending a mailing list - and don;twant to imply they ar esoliciting orders from there. Maybe thats what they mean...

well, are you sure? what if the person asking for info or brochures were under 21?

They say that they by law cannot respond to in customers in Utah and Michigan. (See fer yerself!!).

That message is on a form with a box for the subject ('regarding') and the only two options available are Orders and Mailling list.

So, if they can't sell to those states, then they can't take orders and there's no point sending a mailing list - and don;twant to imply they ar esoliciting orders from there. Maybe thats what they mean...

I don't think so, Peter. There are many other states which, like Michigan, disallow shipping unless a permit is issued. Some still ban all shipments. It is not just Michigan and Utah (and I have no idea what Utah's laws are on this subject of shipping.

Tamayo was kind enough to respond to my inquiry:

Thank you very much for letting me know that that phrase is put on to our website. I will have it changed. We certainly can reply back to customers, but we cannot ship directly into those states at this time.

Thank you again for letting me know about this. We will get it fixed as soon as possible.

Heather Clawson
Tamayo Family Vineyards
O: 925-513-8463
F: 925-513-9182

My response from Heather was a little different, Gary:

Good morning.

In reply to your question about being able to reply to customers in Utah and Michigan - we can reply to them if they were to send us a message, but we cannot SHIP directly to consumers in Utah at all. Michigan, we can ship to them once we get a permit to ship into the state directly to consumers.

The laws regarding shipping of wine directly to consumers vary with each state and sometimes it is not favorable to the consumers and the wineries.

If there is anything else that we can ever do for you, please do not hesitate to call or email.

Thank you for your interest in our winery!

Heather Clawson
Tamayo Family Vineyards
O: 925-513-8463
F: 925-513-9182

As I mention to Robin, there's so much uniformity on various winery sites, it must be coming from a single source, not just Tamayo. I'll search further.

Robin, there's so much uniformity in this language on the various winery sites, it must be coming from a single source, not just Tamayo. I'll search further. Regards, Bob

[Robin Garr]

Robin, there's so much uniformity in this language on the various winery sites, it must be coming from a single source, not just Tamayo. I'll search further. Regards, Bob

I'll bet they all got it from the same lame-brained "consultant," Bob.

I see Laurel Glen is one of them. If you don't come up with something definitive, I'll drop Patrick a note.

I agree, Robin.

I've sent a note to the Wine Institute and Free the Grapes. I'll revert if I get any info.

Regards, Bob

The Wine Institute has a comprehensive answer, Robin; might make an interesting article -- news to me. (Thanks Gary, also.)

Dear Bob:

Thank you for contacting Wine Institute.

I think we can answer your question regarding the puzzling text that you
see on some winery web sites regarding Michigan and Utah.

Michigan and Utah are the only states that have passed and enacted laws
that create a children's protection registry. The purpose of both laws
is noble, i.e., to prohibit certain vendors from sending (thereby
preventing minors from receiving) electronic messages that advertise a
product or service that a minor is prohibited by law from purchasing,
viewing, possessing or participating in. These communications would
include those for wine and other alcoholic beverages, tobacco products,
and adult entertainment materials. Registries in Michigan and Utah allow
parents and guardians in those states to register a "contact point,"
including email addresses, mobile phone numbers, fax numbers, and
instant messaging user names, for inclusion into the registry. Once
entered, these contact points are deemed protected and off limits to
such communications.

The Michigan and Utah laws apply for any communications made after
August 1, 2005 and August 15, 2005, respectively. Wineries are
considered "senders," and in order to comply with the law, must match
their mailing lists against the registries of Michigan and Utah on a
monthly basis, for which they must pay both Michigan and Utah a
per-email-address fee. Violations can be costly, and both states
prescribe civil and criminal penalties.

While one method of compliance requires that wineries "scrub" their
email lists against the registries maintained by Michigan and Utah
agencies every month, no violation can occur if a winery doesn't send
email to Michigan or Utah. Hence the reluctance of many wineries to
send email to either state.

For more information on the email registries, you can visit the
following web sites:

Michigan: https://www.protectmichild.com/

Utah : https://www.utahkidsregistry.com

These laws were patterned in part after the Federal Trade Commission's
"Do Not Call" provisions, but both the Michigan and Utah provisions are
state laws. Even the FTC is unconvinced that the state solutions will
work to reduce spam, and in fact has indicated that such laws may have a
tendency to increase junk emails to minors, but since these are active
laws, wineries as well as other companies must comply with its
provisions. These laws mean well, but email addresses are, by their
nature, portable and not geographic (for example, a person may have
moved from California to Michigan but kept the same email), so it makes
compliance extremely difficult.


Wendell Lee
General Counsel, Wine Institute
425 Market Street, Suite 1000
San Francisco, CA 94105
Phone: (415) 356-7534 direct
Confidential Fax: (650) 618-1501
Mobile: (415) 244-6173
Email: wlee@wineinstitute.org
Web: http://www.wineinstitute.org

Gary, I sent Heather a note quoting the Wine Institute reply to my inquiry. Thanks for posting about this subject -- news to me.

Regards, Bob

Gary, I sent Heather a note quoting the Wine Institute reply to my inquiry. Thanks for posting about this subject -- news to me.

Regards, Bob

Thanks for doing the legwork, Bob. This whole thing is fascinating in an arcane, KGB-ish kind of way.

And thanks for sending a note to Heather. I imagine I'll be seeing these folks in the near future as I live only about 30-40 minutes' drive out from their location.

Robin, here's a bit more on the topic from the Bob/Wendell correspondence:

Dear Wendell,

Thanks for the comprehensive answer -- all news to me. We are having an interesting conversation about the subject on Wine Lovers Page at

http://www.wineloverspage.com/forum/vil ... php?t=8855

Not many wine lovers know about the laws, apparently.

Regards, and thanks again, Bob

******

Dear Robert:

These are obscure laws for the obsessively compulsive, so I'm not surprised that even wine lovers are unaware about them. I'm sure that, armed with this knowledge, you will be able to clarify any ambiguities that your fellow wine lovers may have concerning the mysterious language about Utah and Michigan. And depending on how much information you would like to use to pound the point home, I've included some information that we have shared with our winery members regarding these laws.

There have been attempts in other states to pass similar legislation, but we have successfully opposed all additional efforts so far to increase these laws beyond Michigan and Utah. The Utah law is in litigation, being challenged by the Free Speech Coalition (the adult entertainment industry). We are not joining in their lawsuit for various reasons.

Best-
Wendell

in order to comply with the law, must match
their mailing lists against the registries of Michigan and Utah

How does this work then?

Supposing a winery in - say -- California sends an email to an email address that belongs to an under 21 year old in Michigan and they complain.

Michigan law was broken, but the winery is in California, never set foot in Michigan. Can Michigan law penalise teh winery? Do they have jurisdiction? Does it matter where the email server is -- the email is actually sent to an email server.

Since none of you savvy wine literate Americans have ever heard of this legality its pretty certain that no-one outside the US has. So what about a French winery that trangresses?

Does this mean that under 21 year olds aren't allowed in Michigan shops that sell wine, tobacco etc? How about a Michigan under 21 yo that goes enters a California wine shop, or looks in a its window -- or goes to France and ditto?

Seems to me a lw that was passed with good intentions but the ramifications weren't thought out.

Seems to me a lw that was passed with good intentions but the ramifications weren't thought out.

I think it was very well thought out. Cynic and conspiracy theorist that I am, I suspect that the WSWA was directly or indirectly behind the law because it is another means of impeding direct communications between wineries and customers. But that's only me. And I have a stiff neck from looking over my shoulder to see who's following me.

I see that there are 13,100 hits on this sentence on Google this morning. Many wineries list the same caution, including big guys like Beringer.

I'll do a little digging and see what's going on.

Bob, do you suppose it's akin to the fairly widespread practice by (mostly) larger wineries and liquor producers that require Internet visitors to attest to their age before visiting the site? No law requires them to do so, but it appears to have become an industry standard presumably in an excess of caution against being accused of marketing to underage consumers.

It's hard for me to see any reasonable restriction that could legally forbid citizens of Utah to READ a wine-related Website, so it seems likely that a similar excess of caution prevails.

Personally, I see this as another culture war issue and would much prefer to see the industry fight it than cave in, but I guess that's not going to happen ...

Robin:

Remember who you are dealing with here. Prior to the Olympics games in Utah, I went into a restaurant in Salt Lake City. An Italian place. Talked to the waitress, perused the menu, made my selections. No mention of wine at this point. I asked, "Do you not offer wine here? Do you not have a license?"

She replied that they did offer wine, and they did have a license, but Utah law strictly forbade them from mentioning it to a customer. They were not allowed to first bring up the fact that alochol beverage of any type was available. Only when a customer asked could they show them a wine list or acknowledge they had wines to sell and serve.

Now when you're dealing with the type of government/social mentality that can pass and enforce those laws....remind me why you think there might be an "excess of caution" in a supplier/producer attempting to keep the forces of prohibition away??? I wouldn't be surprised at the religious forces in Utah attempting to censor internet traffic like that. (I don't think they'd succeed, mind you, but I don't think that would stop them from trying.