Psychics:

Factual Questions
1

Have you seen the commercials for “Cleo” the tarot reader? She seems to demonstrate that she can see into virtually every nook and cranny of your life, coming up with incredibly specific details. Then, at the last moment, the words “For entertainment only” appear on the screen.

Her service charges a whopping $5.99/minute – nearly $360/hour!

Just how far can somebody go with this “For entertainment only” thing? At what point do the authorities say, “Okay, you’re clearly deceiving people with ambiguous phrasing.”

For example, what if I was to run a commercial which said:

“I can give you answers to all your problems and help you in every aspect of your life!” (Note that I didn’t say I’d give you the correct answers to your problems, and I didn’t say my help would be useful.)

“Results are guaranteed!” (Note that I didn’t specify what specific result was guaranteed, or even that the results would be beneficial.)

“Your life can be better!” (Always true, though I didn’t say that I will be the one to make it so.)

“Can you afford not to find out specific, direct, clear solutions to every one of your troubles?” (I’m not saying the solutions come from me.)

“Isn’t this a good time for you to take control of your life and become rich and happy?” (Who could deny this?)

“Become one of millions of satisfied customers today!” (I’m not saying I have even one; I’m saying I’d like you to be one of millions.)

At what point does a disclaimer become insufficient? At what point do the authorities say, “Okay, it obvious to even a stunned flea that your phrasing is intended to mislead”?

NOTE: For Cleo’s lawyers, please note that I didn’t say that she is doing anything wrong.

2

If anyone is gullible enough to fall for this crap, why should the rest of us have to save them from their own stupidity?

3

Here’s the real question: Why is she charging $5.99 / minute and going through all the hassle of setting up a telepsychic business when she could be an instant millionaire?!?! Mr. James Randi is willing to give her $1,000,000 if she can “demonstrate any psychic, supernatural or paranormal ability of any kind under satisfactory observing conditions”:

4

…just how many psychics have become lottery winners?? No, wait, I forgot - they can’t use their powers for such a selfish purpose, can they?

5

I used to work with a guy who was a psychic on the side. He’d make extra cash at night working as a psychic from home. The network thingy would actually route calls to his house. He got set up with the company by a friend, adn when he first started working for them, they sent him to a 2 week training course. During the course they taught him to detect emotions, subtley ask leading questions, etc. They also trained him on how to answer skeptics’ questions like, “Well, if you’re psychic, then you should know my name.” He’d just respond that he was a psychic and not a mind reader. I was over at his place a couple of times when he was taking calls and they were pretty interesting. He was a scam and I have no doubt that any of the rest are. I have to agree with panache. If they’re gullible enough to fall for it, let them.

6

In the scenario outlined by the OP, you can indeed go pretty darn far with the claims you make, as long as you qualify them with the “for entertainment purposes only” line. In college, we kicked around the idea of making some extra money this way, and went as far as contacting our city’s Smaller Business Bureau to find out how much “entertainment purposes only” protects you. It allowed you to make claims exactly like those described in the OP.

An aside for FairyChatMom … there was a woman in my neighborhood growing up who worked as a psychic, out of her home. Imagine my surprise when, years later, I saw her name and picture in an ad on the side of a bus showing NY State Lottery winners!

7

Timothy Campbell:

Interesting that you put a disclaimer at the end of your post. I wonder why. Does merely stating “just kidding” mean that you were just kidding? :slight_smile:
Seriously, though, the disclaimer is typically enough to discourage tort cases. And that’s why it’s there–to discourage. Someone would have to sue for damages and claim negligence on the part of the “psychic” before the “psychic” would call his or her disclaimer into play…it’s not a bad fall-back position. Not fool-proof, by any means, but it’s kept very broad and vague for that purpose, anyway. As for what you can “legally” claim and get away with? Just about anything, depending on who sues you, and for what. People regularly hock all manner of hooey, even without disclaimers and are rarely chastised for it. Witness magneto-therapy, dowsing rods, chiropractic medicine, etc…oops. ::trying to jam lid back on jar of worms::

FairyChatMom:

What, you think there are cancer treatment centers or children’s burn units that couldn’t use a few million bucks in anonymous donations? I think that anyone who is psychic who ISN’T donating tons of money to charities is a repulsive, selfish, sick and evil dirtbag. I mean, why would you NOT help innocent children?
Oh…well…unless they’re not really psychic.

The above is presented for entertainment purposes only.

Thank you, and Goodnight.

8

Please note that the purpose of my OP was not to contest the silliness of phone psychics (or indeed any purported psychic). I read “Skeptical Inquirer” every month, so I’m well aware of those issues.

I’m a bit surprised at the attitude of “If they’re too stupid to phone a psychic, that’s their problem!” What ever happened to “Truth in Advertising”? Yes, I know that advertisers can play with words to get people to believe something that they haven’t actually said (e.g. “No battery lasts longer!” = “Our battery lasts longest!”) What I’m saying is that in the case of certain phone psychics, this “art of deceit” is getting out of hand.

Is this a matter of “free speech”? Well, here in Canada it’s against the law to publish as fact things you know are not true (e.g. the infamous Ernst Zundel case). I acknowledge that it’s very hard to prove what somebody “knows to be false” (i.e. maybe they’re genuinely stupid or nuts), but in the case of the phone psychics, the choice of words is just too, too conveniently ambiguous – and there are a lot of poor saps who are getting taken in.

Okay, let’s give you an extreme case as an example, then. Let’s say I ran this ad:

“Send me a dollar and I will send you $1000. Yes, it’s absolutely true! You mail me a single U.S. dollar and I will mail back a U.S. $1000 bill, which is completely legal. There are no tricks. This is an honest, genuine offer. You will not be placed on a mailing list and there will be no further obligations. In fact, if you send us $10, we’ll send you $10,000! So write to us today, at ScamCo, 666 Gimmique Road, New York, NY!”

Then, after that, I run a disclaimer for 3 seconds that says, “Offer for amusement purposes; quid pro quo not intended; no restitution of donations; cited schedule of remuneration is wholly ersatz.”

Ersatz!? Well, of course I’m not going to use a word that the average person knows means “fake”, am I?

My question is this: could I run that ad and not be thrown in jail?

9

Jingo: Interesting that you put a disclaimer at the end of your post. I wonder why. Does merely stating “just kidding” mean that you were just kidding?

Actually, my disclaimer wasn’t of the same ilk as “For entertainment purposes only”; it was a statement of fact. If you carefully read what I wrote, you’ll see that nowhere do I say that Cleo has done anything wrong. Indeed, I wrote the post in such a way that you could argue that I was giving her as an example of how good psyhics are getting a bad name from shysters. :wink: – oops, I mean :slight_smile:

10

The thing about free speech, Timothy, is that you can’t adversely affect other people—criminally or civilly.

While your advert doesn’t constitute criminal negligence (as would yelling “Fire!” in a crowded theatre), it could certainly be taken as civilly actionable negligence. That is to say, you would very likely be held responsible for damages were someone to sue you based on claims of false advertising…and you’d owe them damages. Maybe not 10 grand, but it could get ugly. Now, of course, if someone could show that you INTENDED to dupe people, that’s a different story. That story is called “The guy who went to prison for fraud.” It’s a crummy story.

I could also argue that your association of my client’s name (hypothetically: Cleo) with your post in a public forum specifically with the intent to call into question the ethics of a legal disclaimer constitutes, good sir, LIBEL. Cleo’s name is associated, by you, with a discussion as to “what I could get away with” and “…your phrasing is intended to mislead.” :wink:
Do you see my point? You can read it one way, and I can read it another. Disclaimer or not, somebody’s gotta prove damages. Admittedly, my hypothetical case is a bit silly, but I’ve read LOTS of Tort cases and, trust me, they get ALOT sillier. Your disclaimer was of PRECISELY the same ilk as Cleo’s. That is, it was intended to define/clarify your position so as to absolve you of responsibility…that’s why you said it. “This post is for entertainment purposes only,” is also a statement of fact–to me. To someone else this post may be the word of God, making my disclaimer untrue to them.

Much of the law regarding this sort of thing is rather vague and subjective itself, with a good deal of “reasonableness” written in. That’s why wishy-washy disclaimers work reasonably well. Sorry there’s no black-and-white answer on this, but welcome to U.S. Tort Law. :slight_smile:

Disclaimer: The preceding post is NOT the word of God.

Thank you, and Goodnight