I don’t know if it’s limited to mental health providers. It seems that way based on what I quoted in post 11. Is there something you want to make me aware of?
Hold on, a book explaining how to do something is an advertisement for the service of doing that something?
In that case handing out pamphlets on how to properly use a condom is equivalent to selling yourself as a prostitute.
What if I want to write a book, “How to get a Million Dollars”, and the three step solution proposed in my book is
- Send Lemur866 $1000
- ???
- You get $1,000,000.
That would be fraud, right? Do I have the right to publish my book?
It seems to me that if your book said, “Wanna cure homosexuality? The way you do that is sign up for Bricker’s Pray the Gay Away Camp, for the low low cost of $937, operators are standing by at 555-123-4567, call now because supplies are limited.” you would be engaging in fraud of the kind prohibited by the law. That is advertising conversion therapy.
But you could still write a book promoting conversion therapy as long as you didn’t advertise for conversion therapy, in the same way that you could write a book about contract killers without advertising for contract killers, or a book about underage prostitution without advertising for underage prostitution services.
Is a book “practices”?
No.
In full (bolding mine):
I think your book is going to be just fine.
I don’t know. The statute appears to make it “unlawful” for “any person” to engage in one of the enumerated “unfair or deceptive acts or practices” in “a transaction intended to result or that results in the sale or lease of goods or services to any consumer.”
There’s noting in that that would be limited to a mental health situation. (And many of the enumerated examples make little sense in the mental health context – for example (12) - “Advertising the price of unassembled furniture without clearly indicating the assembled price of that furniture if the same furniture is available assembled from the seller.”)
For our purposes, the unlawful “act or practice” is “Advertising, offering to engage in, or engaging in sexual orientation change efforts with an individual.” “Sexual orientation efforts” is defined as “any practices that seek to change an individual’s sexual orientation.”
There’s nothing that is limited to mental health providers, so I was wondering what you were seeing.
Now, as to the original question, that would seem to extend to advertising to sale of “Changing Your Sexual Orientation for Dummies”. (And it seems to cover any service that is part of “change efforts”). I’m ambivalent on whether or not the simple act of selling the book is “offering to engage in” or “engaging in” the change effort… although, if you were the author, I think it probably would. (It’s the only time “engage” in used in the statute, so I don’t have anything to compare it to).
Why is it important if the law is banning books or speech? Isn’t speech also covered under the first amendment?
The law doesn’t ban either. It bans services.
nm
How do you figure? It very clearly bans certain acts in connection with “a transaction intended to result or that results in the sale or lease of goods or services to any consumer.”
But the text you quote is not part of the new Sec. 1770. It’s a preface that lays out the intent of the legislature.
But the actual words the legislature uses are not exactly consistent with their expressed intent. In other words, the language they use in proposing how to modify Sec 1770 is sloppy.
Now, because of that sloppiness, a plaintiff can sue, and the defendant cannot recover costs.
Yes, but commercial speech is entitled only to very thin First Amendment protection.
So gay conversion therapy is out, but you can still practice homeopathy and naturopathy in CA as long as you tell them you aren’t licensed by the state. Go figure.
Regards,
Shodan
Who cares if a book is “practices?” The language is: “Advertising, offering to engage in, or engaging in sexual orientation change efforts with an individual.”
Why do you mention “practices,” when that’s not part of the relevant Sec. 1770 language?
Some people are confused by the legislative counsel’s digest. Such language is not part of the bill and does not operate to narrow language in the text of the statute.
The relevant statutory language is:
Aside from the question of whether the prohibiting advertising will, as a practical matter, forbid book sales, there is also a straightforward application to the books themselves. The book itself is prohibited if it is as an advertisement for sexual orientation change efforts or it is a sexual orientation change effort. A book that says, “Great news! You can change your orientation by following the steps in Chapter 2” is both.
There are some contrary statutory arguments. You could argue that once you’ve already bought the book, there is no further goods or services being marketed. But I don’t think that’s much of an argument. Most such books will surely mention services and the authors other work, and the cover and dust jacket could be interpreted as the deceptive part inducing purchase of the book.
Finally, it’s important to note that in First Amendment law the inquiry is a little different from other areas of law. The question isn’t whether the statute can be narrowly interpreted not to affect books or whether the state will indeed choose to go after authors. The question is whether the statute is broad enough to chill the publication and sale of books.
I’m not a lawyer, but I can see how it could be possible. I would think intent matters when interpreting words such as “engaging in” and “deceptive acts or practices.”
The intent of all of the articles regarding this is also clear. “California wants to ban books.” Sure they do.
I think because the statute defines “efforts” as “practices.”
I think the point, however, is that the statute bans advertising or engaging in the “efforts” in connection with the sale of goods or services. And a book is goods.
Never mind.
Remember that this is part of the civil code. If enacted, you still can’t be tossed in the hoosegow for selling a book. It’s not a ban and calling it a ban is sloppy.
But someone who alleges they bought your book and were damaged as a result can now sue you, for actual and punitive damages. If they lose, you can’t recover your costs and fees.
That alone is enough to discourage me from selling my book in California.
Selling ME unassembled furniture is definitely a mental health issue. 