IANAL, and I agree the language is sloppy, but ISTM that what is being prohibited here is the “practice” of fraudulent psychotherapy that purports to be able to change sexual orientation; IOW, one-on-one or small group sessions with a “practitioner”. Simply selling books that either argue that such therapy is effective or purport to teach individuals how to change their own orientation wouldn’t fall into that category. Psychiatrists and therapists write self-help books all the time, and I’ve never heard it suggested that someone who buys such a book and feels they are harmed by the advice therein can then sue the author, whom they have never personally interacted with, for malpractice.
I’m curious…
If I publish a do-it-yourself book on home plumbing and it is filled with errors and bad advice (some of which may be how to do illegal plumbing that is not to code) and someone buys the book, follows the advice and it ends up costing them a fortune to repair the mistakes can they sue me and expect to recover damages?
If no why not?
If yes then why does California need a law to allow people to sue the writer of a book that gives harmful advice?
Why does it “seem to you,” that way when the language of the actual law being proposed doesn’t track with your view?
I’m not a civil lawyer, but so far as I know, the short answer to “why not,” is that the conduct doesn’t constitute a civil wrong for which relief can be granted.
In other words, when Allen sues Barb, he must identify a specific civil wrong of some kind committed by Barb. A tort occurs when Barb breaches some legal duty of care. So far as I know, there’s no duty of care created by writing a do-it-yourself book, even if the instructions therein are wrong.
IANAL, but from the sound of it the law wasn’t ever intended to target books, unless the book is a magic book of gender change that claims that by rubbing its cover your genitalia inverts. The book is intended to stomp out businesses that purport to be able to change sexual orientation, and advertisement for such businesses. The rationale is apparently that the businesses who claim to be able to do this are lying and advertisement for them is false advertising.
This noise about books about sexual orientation change being banned sounds like bullshit to me - from the sound of the discussion it’s unlikely that such a book would be banned. But I may be misunderstanding the law. Regardless, any such books would not be the only target of the law, or even the primary target.
I do find myself wondering, if the rationale for the law really is that conversion therapy doesn’t work, couldn’t similar rationale be brought to bear on other industries as well with devastating effect? Psychics, homeopathy, alternative medicine, weather reporting, religion? (Okay, religion has other protections, but still.)
That’s almost certainly correct.
But the point is that despite that intent, the actual language used in the bill does target books.
Good discussion in Alm v. Van Nostrand Reinhold Co., Inc., 480 N.E.2d 1263 (Ill. App. Ct. 1985):
I agree that what you’re saying makes sense, at least to some degree.
Does it make a difference that weather forecasting is often better than nothing, while a psychic and a conversion “therapist” are always worse than nothing? Or the fact that the case against conversion’s efficacy and ethicality are practically airtight, while the case against some of the others may not be quite so impervious to arguments (yet)?
Bricker - let’s say I’m a bookseller who has in his front window a book about the law… maybe a how-to on court procedure or whatnot. Let’s also say I feature this book online.
California law prohibits things like advertising that I practice the law unless I’m licensed to practice law.
Can you draw the distinction between me being at risk of prosecution for advertising a book about practicing the law, and actually advertising that I practice law (without a license)? And why wouldn’t a similar distinction be made about advertising a book about becoming straight or whatever, and actually advertising that I can make you straight?
Because in my first read of the bill about sexual orientation, it seems to me to be a similar approach. I can’t advertise or promise you that I can practice the law/change your orientation; but that doesn’t mean I can’t sell books on the subject.
Great. Thanks!
Although I do not see why the publisher should be liable and not just make the author responsible for their words which would seem to solve one of the court’s main issues with this. So what if an unknowable number of people can sue? Nothing new about that. If enough people come forward they can from a class action.
What the law makes illegal is:
(28) Advertising, offering to engage in, or engaging in sexual orientation change efforts with an individual.
Sexual orientation change efforts are defined as:
- As used in this title:
…
(i) (1) “Sexual orientation change efforts” means any practices that seek to change an individual’s sexual orientation. This includes efforts to change behaviors or gender expressions, or to eliminate or reduce sexual or romantic attractions or feelings toward individuals of the same sex.
(2) “Sexual orientation change efforts” does not include psychotherapies that: (A) provide acceptance, support, and understanding of clients or the facilitation of clients’ coping, social support, and identity exploration and development, including sexual orientation-neutral interventions to prevent or address unlawful conduct or unsafe sexual practices; and (B) do not seek to change sexual orientation.
So paragraph 2, though not paragraph 1, spells out that the “practices” under discussion are “psychotherapies”.
If it is legal to sell a book for 10 dollars that says in order to stop being gay you have to do x, y, and z, then it should be legal to charge 10 dollars to sit down with someone and tell them to stop being gay you have to do x, y, and z. As long as the person is not making fraudulent claims then what consenting adults do with their time and no money is no business of the government.
So, say your 5 year old biologically male child decides one day he’s a girl.
Not being “woke”, you take him to a therapist who is also not “woke”. The child says “I’m a girl”, the therapist says “no you’re not”. This causes the child emotional distress.
What happens to the therapist if word gets out?
I would assume that the therapist would not keep too many clients, if they only have 15 second sessions.
Whether a therapist is “woke” or not (which is kinda odd way to describe someone whose entire job is in fact to care about people’s feelings), if that is the entirety of their therapy, they are a pretty crap therapist, wouldn’t you think?
I assume that you draw the same type of equivalency between penthouse forums and prostitution?
You are allowed to provide conversion therapy for consenting adults in California. But you’re not allowed to provide conversion therapy for minors.
So you’re cool now?
I would put such a therapist in the same category as mechanics that hit engines with sledgehammers to fix them and people that build houses by hitting walls in a fast and random madcap manner-caricatures that belong in comic strips.
Well, obviously you can imagine past 15 seconds right? I’ve been to a few therapists, some who were great and some who were crap and/or extremely blunt and not particularly indulgent. They certainly exist.
Of course, I can imagine past 15 seconds. But we are not indicting this hypothetical therapist based on what we would imagine she says, but on what she actually says.
After the initial declaration and denial, what happens then? Does the therapist scream at the child for the next 59 minutes, 45 seconds that they are not a girl, or do they talk about what sorts of things are leading them to these feelings, whether they are short term infatuations, whether they are longer term behaviors? Does the therapist try to find out what is going on with the child in order to tell the best treatment, or just demand that the child stop acting that way?
Do you not consider any of that to be important?
No, it doesn’t. It says that certain psychotherapies aren’t to be defined as "sexual orientation change efforts.” It doesn’t say that the only practices included in the law are those that are psychotherapies.
Which individual is your book attempting to change?