A question of the first amendment...

[Ducky]

Kevin Trudeau has an FTC agreement barring him from

broadly bans him from appearing in, producing, or disseminating future infomercials that advertise any type of product, service, or program to the public, except for truthful infomercials for informational publications. In addition, Trudeau cannot make disease or health benefits claims for any type of product, service, or program in any advertising, including print, radio, Internet, television, and direct mail solicitations, regardless of the format and duration. Trudeau agreed to these prohibitions and to pay the FTC $2 million to settle charges that he falsely claimed that a coral calcium product can cure cancer and other serious diseases and that a purported analgesic called Biotape can permanently cure or relieve severe pain.

FTC press release here.

Yet he has a new book out that would seemingly be a direct violation of this agreement.

Would this book be protected under first amendment issues?

Granted, I have not had the pleasure of reading this drivel, but I assume he at some point in the book reiterates his belief in Coral Calcium, Shark Cartilidge et.al. as a panacea for cancer. Would that not violate his agreement?

Is your right to free speech still protected when the FTC forbids you from publicly endorsing medical claims at all, and you then do exactly that?

My guess is his right to say it is protected, but he will still be fined and/or imprisoned for fraudulent claims...

 

[The idea]

Yet he has a new book out that would seemingly be a direct violation of this agreement.

Look at the structure of what you quoted:

"Trudeau cannot make blah for any type of blah in any advertising..."

Is a book considered to be "advertising"?

My guess is his right to say it is protected, but he will still be fined and/or imprisoned for fraudulent claims...

Isn't that a contradiction? "You have the right to do this, but you will still be punished by the government for doing it."

 

[Ducky]

Re: Re: A question of the first amendment...

Look at the structure of what you quoted:

"Trudeau cannot make blah for any type of blah in any advertising..."

Is a book considered to be "advertising"?


Isn't that a contradiction? "You have the right to do this, but you will still be punished by the government for doing it."

To quote the agreement:

Trudeau cannot make disease or health benefits claims for any type of product, service, or program in any advertising, including print, radio, Internet, television, and direct mail solicitations, regardless of the format and duration.

I also don't think it's a contradiction, as this is civil injunction, which is my question. Are civil injunctions enough to supress free speech in a printed book, or is it that he can print it, and be fined away for it?


edited to add

see below post. not sure why my browser freaked out like that, but alas, a computer genius I am not...

 

[Ducky]

Re: Re: A question of the first amendment...

Look at the structure of what you quoted:

"Trudeau cannot make blah for any type of blah in any advertising..."

Is a book considered to be "advertising"?


Isn't that a contradiction? "You have the right to do this, but you will still be punished by the government for doing it."

To quote the agreement:

Trudeau cannot make disease or health benefits claims for any type of product, service, or program in any advertising, including print, radio, Internet, television, and direct mail solicitations, regardless of the format and duration.

He took a full page ad out for this book in Newsweek. The book itself can be considered an advertisement for his beliefs in quackery.

I also don't think it's a contradiction, as this is civil injunction, which is my question. Are civil injunctions enough to supress free speech in a printed book, or is it that he can print it, and be fined away for it?

 

[The idea]

He took a full page ad out for this book in Newsweek.

Did the full page ad in Newsweek claim that the act of reading the book will provide therapeutic benefits to the reader?

 

[Ducky]

Re: Re: A question of the first amendment...

Did the full page ad in Newsweek claim that the act of reading the book will provide therapeutic benefits to the reader?

Good question.

It was a full page ad for a book entitled "Natural Cures."

I don't think it expressly said reading the book is one of those cures, but the intent was rather clear: the book conatins cures.

Wouldn't that be the same as his infomercials?

 

[The idea]

The book itself can be considered an advertisement for his beliefs in quackery.

Is that the way that the FTC interprets the word "advertising"?

 

[Ducky]

Re: Re: A question of the first amendment...

Is that the way that the FTC interprets the word "advertising"?

That I don't know. I guess that's what I am asking.

Does the FTC have an interpretation on free speech that would infringe on this quack making claims?

 

[KingMerv00]

Kevin T. is scum and freedom of speech isn't intended to protect his kind of trickery.

You know what they say, "You can't yell 'fire' in crowded theater."

He does worse. He yells "fire" and then charges you to get out.

 

[Beerina]

Re: Re: Re: A question of the first amendment...

The book itself can be considered an advertisement for his beliefs in quackery.

It's advertising only in the sense any book is advertising for it's author's ideas. I.e. it's exactly the reason people publish books, which is to say, it's 100% protected free speech.

Now if his book contains literal ads for health products, that's another issue. If it chats up products but doesn't literally advertise them in a standard way, that's a gray area.

I remember watching this guy on late-nite TV a few years ago and thinking, "Those are some bold claims right there." It's good the government finally got around to smacking him.

Of course, people tout books all the time, and people read the books and follow the advice and die all the time.

 

[crimresearch]

From Amazon.com:

Natural Cures "They" Don't Want You To Know About (Hardcover)
by Kevin Trudeau

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
List Price: $29.95

Product Details

Hardcover: 571 pages
Publisher: Alliance Publishing (June 30, 2005)
Language: English
ISBN: 0975599518
Product Dimensions: 9.2 x 6.4 x 1.5 inches
Shipping Weight: 2.0 pounds
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Does advertising have an ISBN number and a list price?

 

[Ducky]

From Amazon.com:

Natural Cures "They" Don't Want You To Know About (Hardcover)
by Kevin Trudeau

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
List Price: $29.95

Product Details

Hardcover: 571 pages
Publisher: Alliance Publishing (June 30, 2005)
Language: English
ISBN: 0975599518
Product Dimensions: 9.2 x 6.4 x 1.5 inches
Shipping Weight: 2.0 pounds
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Does advertising have an ISBN number and a list price?

Relevance?

Talk show appearances don't have those and those are specifically a violation of his agreement also.

 

[crimresearch]

If you don't see any difference between a book, and advertising, and you don't see the relevance of an ISBN number or having to purchase the book, as opposed to the definition of advertising, I'm afraid I can't help you.

 

[corplinx]

Does Mr. Trudeau sell the cures the book promotes? I guess thats the crux of the issue. Many diet books can be put in this same category by people who sell the products recommended are in a similar vein.

Its marketing even if it doesnt fall within the realm of traditional print advertising.

 

[KingMerv00]

According to the review of the book on Amazon, he requests that you join his website (for a fee naturally) and gives very little info. Does that count?

Side note: How does he get away with slandering and libeling all of the drug and food companies?

 

[slingblade]

Re: Re: Re: Re: A question of the first amendment...

Of course, people tout books all the time, and people read the books and follow the advice and die all the time.

Along with one's right to free speech comes the right to believe any old speech out there, and pay the consequences.

We have the freedom to be as stupid, or as well-informed, as we like, really. Besides, it helps the gene pool.

 

[Art Vandelay]

advertise: To make known; call attention to: advertised my intention to resign.

I see no reason why a book can't be a form of advertisement. Nor do I see why agreeing to not engage in certain forms of speech constitutes a violation of the first amendment.

 

[shanek]

Kevin Trudeau has an FTC agreement barring him from

Disclaimer: I don't have the first clue who Kevin Trudeau is.

Yet he has a new book out that would seemingly be a direct violation of this agreement.

Would this book be protected under first amendment issues?

Yes, no question. If his book contains fraudulent claims, he can be prosecuted for that fraud, but they can't actually stop him from publishing it in the first place.

And in case you, dear lurker, think there should be a exception for cases of coral calcium etc. being a cure for cancer, ask yourself: do you really want to give government that power? What happens when a real cure for cancer comes around? Suppose someone finds a substance that really does cure cancer; how long to you think it would take to wrest away this government restriction preventing this information from being published? For that matter, how can we find out if it's true in the first place without one being able to publish one's findings, others being able to read and check it and perform their own experiments, and publishing their results?

Our framers knew what they were doing when they wrote that. If any politician ever tells you that the first amendment was never intended to protect fill-in-the-blank (smut, drivel, etc.), know that it's an automatic certainty that they're wrong. Because you never know where truth will be when you find it, and you never know what you'll actually be preventing.

 

[shanek]

Kevin T. is scum and freedom of speech isn't intended to protect his kind of trickery.

There it is! The above is exactly what I was talking about in my post. Yes it is; these things should be determined in the marketplace of ideas, not by govenrment fiat.

 

[The idea]

If his book contains fraudulent claims, he can be prosecuted for that fraud, but they can't actually stop him from publishing it in the first place.

Is that a statement about the existing law as you understand it or is that a statement about how the law should be?

I assume that by "contains" you mean something like "makes" or "asserts." In order to establish that some claims are fraudulent, an author may need to fully identify them by including them in the book.

A more substantive issue: can one be prosecuted for fraud if one is not actually attempting to gain something by fraudulent means? For example, is the advertising misrepresenting the nature of the book? Are buyers expecting something quite different from what they receive?

Should it be illegal to advertise Stephen Wolfram's book A New Kind of Science with words such as "whole new way of looking at the operation of our universe"?