| > I'm serious about refunding anyone who ends up not being able to raise their client rates. Since someone who doesn't understand constitutional law downvoted my original post, I want to try again to make you aware of something. Here is a quotation from a page the cites the constitutional law on the issue of performance claims: URL: http://nationalparalegal.edu/conlawcrimproc_public/FreedomOf... Quote: "Commercial speech holds a special place in First Amendment analysis. It is not an unprotected category of speech, nor is it afforded the same level of protection as non-commercial speech. In addition, there are sub-categories within commercial speech. Truthful commercial speech is afforded protection while false or deceptive commercial speech is not protected." (Emphasis added.) Here is another account that makes the same point: URL: http://www.wisbar.org/AM/Template.cfm?Section=News&Templ... Quote: "In 2004, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) banned Kevin Trudeau from appearing in any infomercial promoting any product except publications, which are protected by the First Amendment, provided he did not misrepresent the content of the publication." What these rulings mean is that the contents of a book are protected by the First Amendment, but promotional claims about the book are not. Also, saying "If you aren't happy with my book, I will refund your money" isn't a claim about the book's contents. Saying "I'm serious about refunding anyone who ends up not being able to raise their client rates" is a claim about the book's contents, and its effect. The second is a problem, the first isn't. |