Re: Fraud or Free speech?

[Fred the Red Shirt]

In reply to:

http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum/browse_thread/thread/6bda38ec2e5df54a/d6af1f15d9e97896?hl=en&lnk=gst&q=extortion#d6af1f15d9e97896

On Jul 10, 3:41 pm, Travis <baconl...@gmail.com> wrote:

- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
>From: Travis

> See Also "Time To Celebrate Business" by Lew
> Rockwell<http://mises.org/story/3042> Consumer
> Protection or Legal Extortion? *Daily Article* by S.M.
> Oliva<http://mises.org/articles.aspx?AuthorId=917>| Posted on
> 7/10/2008

> ... What distinguishes Erika
> Wodinsky from a Nigerian banker or a pedophile is that she's
> the assistant director of the Federal Trade Commission's San
> Francisco office. Her staff spends their days trolling the Internet
> for small business owners, like the Hershisers, who sell herbs
> and herbal remedies to willing customers. The FTC routinely
> targets such businesses as part of its "consumer protection"
> mission — which in practice has nothing to do with actual consumers.

Why not? Don't actual consumers also surf the web
and buy products online?

> Ms. Wodinsky's demand letter said that her office had conducted a
> "non-public investigation" of Native Essence and determined that the
> company's website contained "false and/or unsubstantiated claims"
> that "induced" customers to buy certain herbal products. This itself
> was a false statement. Ms. Wodinsky and her staff never interviewed
> any of Native Essence's customers.

How did the author determine that the FTC did not interview any of
Native Essence's customers?

> Indeed, many of the website statements deemed illegal
> by Ms. Wodinsky offered firsthand customer testimony praising Native
> Essence's products and customer service.

How did the author determine that those letters were genuine, and that
they referred to the specific products targeted in the investigation?

> ... Anytime an FTC official disagrees with
> the content of a commercial website, it logically follows that the website
> operator is making "false and/or unsubstantiated claims" in violation of the
> Federal Trade Commission Act of 1917.

I rather suspect a less arbitrary standard for "false and/or
unsubstantiated claims" is used by the FTC.

> ...
> The "negotiated settlement" was hardly a better option, however. Under its
> terms, Native Essence and the Hershisers individually would be under FTC
> control for the next ten years. This would mean, among other things, that
> all of the couple's business records — for any business they own now or in
> the future — would be subject to FTC search and seizure without a court
> order: accounting records, personnel records, customer files (including
> names, addresses, dollar amounts paid, and products purchased),
> advertisements, and promotional materials would all be under the FTC's
> control.

OTOH, that's getting off easy if they really did sell fake cancer
cures, right? Isn't THAT the central issue?

> ...
> Most recipients of extortion letters from Ms. Wodinsky and other
> FTC regional bureaucrats simply sign the "settlement agreement"
> and pray for mercy. The Hershisers took the opposite approach
> — they filed a preemptive lawsuit against the FTC in US District
> Court in Albuquerque. They have asked the court to enjoin the FTC
> from proceeding against them, primarily on the grounds that the
> First Amendment protects their website from government
> censorship....

So now they will have an opportunity to defend themselves against
the charges.

> Ultimately, *Hershiser v. FTC* is about the free-speech rights
> of businesses *and* their customers.

I disagree. Ultimately it is about where to draw the line between
freedom of commercial speech and fraud.

> ...The FTC is actively preventing individuals from
> seeking information about products that they might find useful.
> If you read the feedback on one of the Hershisers' websites
> — posted after news of Ms. Wodinsky's extortion letter became
> public — you'll find dozens of satisfied customers who don't
> want or need the FTC's interference. Here's a particularly
> eloquent explanation of what the Hershisers really do,
> from a customer identified as "V.M.":
> ...

Again, how did the author verify that this was written by a customer?

> I have been buying herbal products from Native Essence
> Herb Co. for nearly 14 years. I have engaged in extensive
> conversations with Native Essence Herb Co. owner, Mark
> Hershiser, and I have read the data on his website. At no
> time has Mark, his literature, or his web site claimed anything
> could prevent, treat, or cure disease. Period! All information
> we discussed was clearly indicated to be based on research
> on traditional uses of herbs. Not only is Mark's traditional
> information and practice NOT deceptive, it isn't even different
> from data that I've found from other sources when I cross
> reference the information. In fact, Mark has even suggested
> books so I could do my own research.

Did the author atempt to verify those statements about the data on
the website/

Assuming it is true that they suggest books, do those books include
material that implies their products cure cancer?

> ...
> Mark has never prescribed any of his products for us. The choice
> is completely mine based on traditional knowledge and contemporary
> research which I get through, among others, Dr. Andrew Weil,
> head of the Program of Integrated Medicine at the University of Arizona.

One wonders what Dr. Andrew Weil's opinion is of the specific
products and claims about them targeted in the FTC investigation.

Of course we would not have to wonder about that if the author
had gone to the trouble to interview him on the subject.

Here is a link to the FTC filings and news release:

http://www.ftc.gov/os/adjpro/d9328/index.shtm

--

FF