The debate wasn't, isn't, has never been about whether "commercial speech is First Amendment speech."
The debate is whether you have evidence to support your claims that it's a very risky and legally actionable idea to offer a refund if people don't see results. Assuming that the offer is truthful.
You have not offered any.
You've found one case where a person was sued for hawking a cancer cure and rapid weight loss, but even so, the lawsuits were over flat out lies inherent in the product and not any kind of results-or-money-back guarantee.
It's pretty amazing. No matter how often I ask for evidence for this assertion of yours, you manage to change the topic. I salute you. You would make an excellent press secretary.
> The debate wasn't, isn't, has never been about whether "commercial speech is First Amendment speech."
Yes, as a matter of fact, it is. The OP was making a mistake by making a performance claim about his book. By doing so, he abandoned the First Amendment protection of the book's contents.
If he had said "money back if you're not happy" but without referring to the book's contents, that could hardly get him in trouble. But by referring to the book's contents and anticipated effect, he opened himself up to people who might like to hold him accountable for the book's contents, something they cannot do if he doesn't refer to the book's contents.
Because of First Amendment protections, it's not possible to hold someone responsible for a book's contents, unless the person makes claims about the contents as part of his sales pitch. This is what got Kevin Trudeau in trouble, even though he was selling books (he believed he was protected, but for the reasons I have just given, he wasn't).
> You've found one case where a person was sued for hawking a cancer cure and rapid weight loss, but even so, the lawsuits were over flat out lies inherent in the product
No, the problem wasn't lies, the problem was the location of the lies. You can lie in a book, but you cannot lie in a sales pitch. Kevin Trudeau either didn't know this or didn't care.
Greg Mortenson wrote a book called "Three Cups of Tea," and raised millions for his charitable activities. Investigators then discovered that his book is a pack of lies, but because it's a book, he couldn't be sued (Mortenson never told the lies outside his book).
Quote: "First Amendment expert and general counsel of the First Amendment Lawyers Association Wayne Giampietro calls those claims absurd, reports the AP.
“It’s his story. It purports to be his experiences. He can say it any way he wants to say. He has the right to publish anything he wants about himself,” Giampietro said. “The idea that you can be sued because perhaps they don’t like what you wrote, for whatever reason, is absurd.” "
My point? If it's between the covers of a book, it doesn't matter what you say, you're protected. If it's part of a sales pitch, someone can try to sue you, and not all plaintiffs are angels.
It is entirely about the difference between protected speech and commercial speech. In a book, you can say anything. In a pitch, you cannot. Very simple.
> No matter how often I ask for evidence for this assertion of yours, you manage to change the topic.
You're the one trying to change the topic. You just tried to claim this isn't about the difference between constitutionally protected and commercial speech. But that is the only issue.
The debate is whether you have evidence to support your claims that it's a very risky and legally actionable idea to offer a refund if people don't see results. Assuming that the offer is truthful.
You have not offered any.
You've found one case where a person was sued for hawking a cancer cure and rapid weight loss, but even so, the lawsuits were over flat out lies inherent in the product and not any kind of results-or-money-back guarantee.
It's pretty amazing. No matter how often I ask for evidence for this assertion of yours, you manage to change the topic. I salute you. You would make an excellent press secretary.