Yeah I know this article has bias, but what do you think?
The bill isn’t about books. It’s about companies that sell the service of abusing your children for you, so you don’t have to.
I don’t know if I understand the legalese well enough to judge whether the article’s position – that the proposed law would outlaw certain book sales – is accurate. If it is accurate, I would oppose such a law and it seems very unlikely that it would pass constitutional muster.
“a transaction intended to result or that results in the sale or lease of goods or services to any consumer”
Goods would undoubtedly include books.
Bias? How about outright misrepresentation?
Try reading the bill. It allows consumers who can show damages to sue businesses for unfair or fraudulent business practices, and defines sexual orientation change efforts as a fraudulent practice, laying out a number of very credible cites. In no way does it ban the sale of books.
Interesting change in strategy, though; religious types are now going from attempting to control others’ behavior by using the excuse of freedom of religion to attempting to control others’ behavior by using the excuse of freedom of speech.
And how does this exclude books as a “good”? It’s right in the bill. That part is not a misrepresentation unless you have a VERY narrow definition of “goods.”
It doesn’t. Businesses can still sell them, but they will be subject to liability for it if the bill passes.
Just that snippet you quoted, out of context, would include books, yes. But that snippet out of context would also include groceries. You need to look a little further to see what goods and services they’re talking about, and when you do that, you’ll see that it doesn’t mean books.
I think banning books because you don’t like their ideas is universally bad. I don’t think it should be dependent upon your political persuasion.
The bill pretty clearly does result in a ban on conversion therapy books. The fact that books are not the sole target or focus of the bill does not change the effect of the legal language.
I share the view that this is bad. The state should not censor books.
Though I would suggest that most people do not actually hold that view. Most people are fine censoring, for example, books about how to build bombs at home. If you allow that, then it is hard to distinguish this situation from that one.
You are a lawyer, correct? I am not. Can you point out how it could ban conversion therapy books?
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=201720180AB2943
Mental health providers already can’t perform sexual orientation change efforts, as specified, with a patient under 18 years of age. This bill broadens what is unlawful for mental health providers:
“advertising, offering to engage in, or engaging in sexual orientation change efforts with an individual.”
I don’t see how this results in a ban on conversion therapy books.
Yeah, reading it I don’t see it either.
The bill very clearly does NOT result in a ban on conversion therapy books. It makes clear that advertising the service of conversion therapy is prohibited.
The proposed law first states that current laws prohibit deceptive advertising to promote the sale of goods or services. It then states that conversion therapy is ineffective and that mental health providers providing the service to those under 18 is already prohibited.
It then puts those explicitly together, perhaps needlessly: advertising an offer to engage in, or engaging in sexual orientation change efforts with an individual is prohibited. Uh yeah, advertising to offer something that is against the law to provide is deceptive.
If there is a change from what already follows from existing law it might be a read that extends the prohibition to beyond the under 18 year old group, as the line reads “with an individual” and does not specify the age group restriction.
But books are not prohibited: deceptive advertisement offering to provide a prohibited service is prohibited.
Is this Elections material?
I don’t think he said it banned it, he said it effectively banned it. Meaning, I assume, that increasing liability to those marketing said books would cause them to avoid marketing such books, thus, making them difficult if not impossible to get. At least, I think that’s what he said.
In the age of the internet, this is funny though.
Yeah, I’m thinking more Great Debates than Elections. Off it goes.
He said: “The bill pretty clearly does result in a ban on conversion therapy books.”
I replied: “Can you point out how it could ban conversion therapy books?”
We can change my “could ban” to “does result in a ban of” if you think it’s more fair to RP.
I only see that this is in regards to broadening what mental health providers already can’t do, which you quoted me on: “advertising, offering to engage in, or engaging in sexual orientation change efforts with an individual.” Where’s the part about book banning?
To be fair, I don’t see how this results in hindering conversion therapists in any way either - much like crisis pregnancy centers, they’ll simply register as “not mental health providers as defined by that law” and keep on being obnoxious, dishonest, toxic assholes.
When you look at themarkup version, the only thing that is added to the code is a bunch of declarations, two definition clarifying items, and one additional thing that is would be unlawful:
The definition of “sexual orientation change efforts” is also added to read:
So the question really is whether or not offering for sale a book that advocates for sexual orientation changing, etc. could fall under the definition of sexual orientation change efforts and would be considered prohibited acts under 1770.
Maybe?
Why do you think it’s limited to mental health providers?
From your link (bolding mine):
I want to sell my book, “Bricker’s Guide To Getting Straight, A Comprehensive Manual To Changing Your Sexual Orientation From Gay To Straight (While Still Liking Broadway),” in California.
But this bill says: “The following unfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practices undertaken by any person in a transaction intended to result or that results in the sale or lease of goods or services to any consumer are unlawful…” and my book is “goods.”
Sec. 1770(a)(28) of the bill says: “Advertising, offering to engage in, or engaging in sexual orientation change efforts with an individual.”
Therefore, in California, it would be within the reach of Sec. 1770 if one were to engage in a sale of a book (goods) that advertised sexual orientation change efforts.
California Civil Code Sec. 1780 allows plaintiffs who suffer damage as a result of a violation of Sec. 1770 to win actual damages, an order enjoining the practice; punitive damages; court costs and attorney’s fees.
A defendant, even if he wins, cannot recover attorney’s fees.