Trudeau in contempt...
- Thread starter Steve Lipsky
- Start date
Most of you will find this hard to believe, but in this case, I lean on the side of Trudeau.
No, I don't support anything he says or does, nor to I support anything he is associated with - however I believe that their is a responsibility on the consumer to exercise common sense. All it takes is a little bit of research to educate yourself on the history of Kevin Trudeau. Google his name and see what comes up - a lot of it isn't good.
We cannot start limiting free speech - even if it means having Trudeau running around out there selling nonsense. If the government can limit Trudeau's rights, then you are opening the door to allowing them to limit yours whenever they feel like it.
Is it false advertising - yes.
Should we create case law where we can limit free speech? No.
No, I don't support anything he says or does, nor to I support anything he is associated with - however I believe that their is a responsibility on the consumer to exercise common sense. All it takes is a little bit of research to educate yourself on the history of Kevin Trudeau. Google his name and see what comes up - a lot of it isn't good.
We cannot start limiting free speech - even if it means having Trudeau running around out there selling nonsense. If the government can limit Trudeau's rights, then you are opening the door to allowing them to limit yours whenever they feel like it.
Is it false advertising - yes.
Should we create case law where we can limit free speech? No.
Blackjack, can you elaborate on your position? I am curious how you consider this to be free speech? He is lying to the consumer in trying to get them to buy his products.
Lies are not protected speech as far as I know.
In addition, a couple years ago he signed some kind of document stating he would no longer falsely advertise on TV. I'm sure that document was specifically designed to give more of a legal backdrop to sue him in case he started this crap again.
- Steve
Lies are not protected speech as far as I know.
In addition, a couple years ago he signed some kind of document stating he would no longer falsely advertise on TV. I'm sure that document was specifically designed to give more of a legal backdrop to sue him in case he started this crap again.
- Steve
While this is a good thing that they might get him off the airwaves...its not a good thing for the pool players waiting to be paid. If he gets a heavy fine or jail time they won't be paid. I'm not saying the guy shouldn't due time...I just feel bad for the pool players if he does. Johnnyt
Basically, to save tie - I am saying that anybody that buys into his lies is not exercising common sense. Trudeau's lies are not a secret, so I don't feel sorry for anybody that bought his book, or is owed money from him. The guy is a liar, it is well documented.
As far as the free speech goes, I won't debate that - there is a responsibility for the consumer to make an educated decision prior to purchasing the book. How anybody (and I mean ANYBODY) can listen to this guy for more than 10 seconds and not realize that he is full of $hit from the get-go - needs to go out and buy a brain.
When you start dealing with free speech issues - and this situation does apply - you open a can of worms that will lead to more restrictions.
Trudeau will beat this charge eventualy, basing it on infringement of his first amendment rights. He will never serve a day in jail, and eventually he will be back doing what he always does. Is there any way to stop him? Probably not. I tried when the IPT first came out, and I was called a naysayer.
As far as the free speech goes, I won't debate that - there is a responsibility for the consumer to make an educated decision prior to purchasing the book. How anybody (and I mean ANYBODY) can listen to this guy for more than 10 seconds and not realize that he is full of $hit from the get-go - needs to go out and buy a brain.
When you start dealing with free speech issues - and this situation does apply - you open a can of worms that will lead to more restrictions.
Trudeau will beat this charge eventualy, basing it on infringement of his first amendment rights. He will never serve a day in jail, and eventually he will be back doing what he always does. Is there any way to stop him? Probably not. I tried when the IPT first came out, and I was called a naysayer.
I'll chime in on this.
People look for fast cures for things like weight loss, depression, credit card debt, and because of looking for a fast cure they spend 0 hours on research.
You can easily and I mean (EASILY) google any of the books "they don't want you to know about" heck, even spell them wrong and you will still find the hits. You will see the bulk of people buying his books are unhappy. How long would it take to google and read reviews? Well obviously more time than people want to spend.
In addition to that, you can look on any one of the many infomercial scam sites and see about people who have tried and evaluated his materials.
People look for fast cures for things like weight loss, depression, credit card debt, and because of looking for a fast cure they spend 0 hours on research.
You can easily and I mean (EASILY) google any of the books "they don't want you to know about" heck, even spell them wrong and you will still find the hits. You will see the bulk of people buying his books are unhappy. How long would it take to google and read reviews? Well obviously more time than people want to spend.
In addition to that, you can look on any one of the many infomercial scam sites and see about people who have tried and evaluated his materials.
I was told that payments from the ITP were still being received by players as early as 3 weeks ago.
Russ..
Russ..
Blackjack said:
Blackjack, as the judge pointed out "false advertising" is NOT protected under the First Amendment nor should it be.
And never has speech been 100% free in advertising or any other method of speech. You cannot defame someone's character and if you are charged with doing so, the law requires you to prove the truth of your statement...and does not require the plaintiff to prove its falsity.
I understand where you are coming from and share your opinion regarding the sanctity of "free speech" but on the other hand, we do have responsibilities to each other in a free society and the blatant lying perpetrated by Mr. Trudeau has no place in this country or anywhere else.
Fianlly, I DO agree with you that everyone should take whatever Trudeau says with about 100 pounds of salt but there are people who have never heard of him and when they see his informercials and books, they have a lawful right to expect that he is not just lying through his teeth.
Regards,
Jim
Blackjack said:Most of you will find this hard to believe, but in this case, I lean on the side of Trudeau.
No, I don't support anything he says or does, nor to I support anything he is associated with - however I believe that their is a responsibility on the consumer to exercise common sense. All it takes is a little bit of research to educate yourself on the history of Kevin Trudeau. Google his name and see what comes up - a lot of it isn't good.
We cannot start limiting free speech - even if it means having Trudeau running around out there selling nonsense. If the government can limit Trudeau's rights, then you are opening the door to allowing them to limit yours whenever they feel like it.
Is it false advertising - yes.
Many don't have computers, some that do are only capable of ogling 44 dbl d's. Once the pool players are paid I could care less if he eats worms, howls at the moon and dies.
He's prolly STOLEN as much as the cumulative total of all the bank robbers these last 5 yrs.
I kinda have to agree with blkjak. If people still believe that you don't have to do anything or don't do much in order to lose weight they need to come out of hibernation. There is sooooooooo much info. avail. today on this and any other subj. you care to address. It's lazy people that really don't care about losing weight who trick themselves into believing you can sit on your fat a@@, eat Mickey D's all day and lose weight. This is the Gerry Springer crowd folks, they'll believe anything.
Once the pool players are paid I could care less if he eats worms, howls at the moon and dies.
Right but I think that the prosecutor will ask for and the judge will impose SERIOUS financial restitution. Of course, he will appeal and that will drag on for years but with that kind of financial gun pointed at him, I would be surprised if he continues to pay the IPT players.
We'll see.
Regards,
Jim
Right but I think that the prosecutor will ask for and the judge will impose SERIOUS financial restitution. Of course, he will appeal and that will drag on for years but with that kind of financial gun pointed at him, I would be surprised if he continues to pay the IPT players.
We'll see.
Regards,
Jim
I have to agree with blackjack here. It's a really slippery slope. If you think about what this boils down to (get past the fact that we all really really dislike trudeau): The goverment in this case is evaluating the content of speech (it's truth quotient) and deciding whether it's legal to speak it or not. The government is basically saying this isn't "true" so you can't speak it. That's scary as all hell. How exactly does the government evaluate truth? (at the time when everyone thought the world was flat, it wasn't "true" that world was indeed not flat...")
Abuses are the costs of freedoms. It's a catch-22 .
Edit: Within reasonable limits... hate speech is a different story IMO
Abuses are the costs of freedoms. It's a catch-22 .
Edit: Within reasonable limits... hate speech is a different story IMO
Last edited:
There is some misunderstanding as to free speech. I am probably the mostzealous advocate of free speech on this forum.
Having said that, there are necessary and time honored exceptions. One is commercial speech, which this is, that misleads the public. Its that way because of the possible injury or harm that might be inflicted on such a large number of people. BTW, most consumers don't research what they buy or why, thats why there are so many infomercials. Just a fact of life.
A classic example of speech that isn't protected, is the yelling of fire in a crowded theater. People are injured and the person yelling fire should be held accountable.
Here, KT was also under a court order not to mislead the public on TV. He did just that, its a violation of his agreement. If he signed the agreement, I would assume that, in any case, he knowingly waived any issue with regard to his speech on TV.
So the reality is, Chubby Chick sees his ad on TV and she buys into it because she wants to look like Angelina Jolie. If you think for one minute that she is going to research it, your wrong. A very large protion of consumers are like cattle, they are lead and mislead easily. Why do you think they use these types of ads on the phoney stuff on late night infomercials? Haven't you ever bought something you seen on TV and found out it was just a cheap POS. That what they are waiting for us to do.
Smart, educated consumerism is more rare than you think.
Having said that, there are necessary and time honored exceptions. One is commercial speech, which this is, that misleads the public. Its that way because of the possible injury or harm that might be inflicted on such a large number of people. BTW, most consumers don't research what they buy or why, thats why there are so many infomercials. Just a fact of life.
A classic example of speech that isn't protected, is the yelling of fire in a crowded theater. People are injured and the person yelling fire should be held accountable.
Here, KT was also under a court order not to mislead the public on TV. He did just that, its a violation of his agreement. If he signed the agreement, I would assume that, in any case, he knowingly waived any issue with regard to his speech on TV.
So the reality is, Chubby Chick sees his ad on TV and she buys into it because she wants to look like Angelina Jolie. If you think for one minute that she is going to research it, your wrong. A very large protion of consumers are like cattle, they are lead and mislead easily. Why do you think they use these types of ads on the phoney stuff on late night infomercials? Haven't you ever bought something you seen on TV and found out it was just a cheap POS. That what they are waiting for us to do.
Smart, educated consumerism is more rare than you think.
Blackjack said:
Read the article.. the judge's opinion on free speech applying to this case of false advertisement is clear.
And practically speaking how often do you see people trying to disseminate opinions that may possibly be censured in some way by the establishment selling garbage in informercials?
Consumer rights are protected by federal law and it's nice to see them do some good.
EDIT: I forgot to say: Hang KT by the balls! We all know he deserves it.
Last edited: