Freedom's Watch Pro-War Ad: Is It False Advertising?

I'm all about beating the far-right neocons and if we can do it legally, fine. If not, I have no issue with that either. None.

But one thing that struck me about "Freedom's Watch" new ad is whether or not it qualifies as "false advertising." I fully recognize this is like imprisoning Al Capone on Income Tax evasion, but that worked and we need to be thinking outside the box here.

Most, but not all states, have false advertising claims on the books. They are all pretty similar and read something like this and are designed to prevent anyone from advertising something they know is false or to prevent someone from misleading the viewer.

State and federal laws control competition by regulating activities that are considered unfair competition, such as:

* false advertising and promotion
* misleading or deceptive trade practices
* palming off
* trade dress violations

False or misleading advertising occurs when a business makes a statement, in advertising, that is either untrue or is likely to deceive the consumer as to the quality, source, origin, or endorsement of the product.

Right now, a major bottled water company is in trouble because its water is tap water repackaged. They may have never made a direct claim otherwise but their communications were misleading and therefore, may well be "false advertising."

In Freedom's Watch's ad, they show the plane flying into the World Trade Center on 9/11 along with the words, "They attacked us."

But the ad only talks about Iraq and is clearly linking the attack on 9/11 to Iraq and therefore it clearly is misleading and could well be considering "false advertising."

Any Attorney Generals out there looking to file a False Advertising claim?

P.S. Yesterday Dave Johnson and I wrote more extensively on this front group. Take a read here.

Comments

[BuzzingAlong]

How is it even romotely possible that the people participating in these ads do not know the truth? Is our educational system this bad?

[ColeenRowleyMN2]

I sent the following letter (which you'll recognized as plaguarized off this blog) as soon as I heard the ad had aired here in Minnesota. Don't hold your breath--I'll let you know is she does anything but our MN AG is a pretty aggressive prosecutor.
Dear Attorney General Lori Swanson:
Please consider taking action upon our complaint that the current pro-war propagandistic ad being aired on KSTP TV (and perhaps other stations) by “Freedom’s Watch”, a shadowy 501c4 organization, is engaging in “false advertising.” The ad has reportedly been produced by President Bush’s former spokesperson, Ari Fleischer, who while employed as Bush’s spokesman, was involved in numerous deceptive statements about the existence of WMD in Iraq as well as misleading statements about Iraq’s prior connection to Al Qaeda terrorists.
I have not researched to find what specific Minnesota law might best apply but most states have false advertising claims on their books. Such laws are designed to prevent anyone from advertising something they know is false or to prevent someone from misleading the viewer.
State and federal laws control competition by regulating activities that are considered unfair competition, such as:
* false advertising and promotion
* misleading or deceptive trade practices
* palming off
* trade dress violations
False or misleading advertising occurs when a business makes a statement, in advertising, that is either untrue or is likely to deceive the consumer as to the quality, source, origin, or endorsement of the product.
In Freedom's Watch's ad, they show the plane flying into the World Trade Center on 9/11 along with the words, "They attacked us." But the ad only talks about Iraq and is clearly linking the attack on 9/11 to Iraq and therefore, it clearly is misleading and could well be considering "false advertising."
You might remember that a similar shadowy pro-war group tried to air very similar propaganda here during the week of the Olympics (late January or early February, 2006). In that case, the ad was roundly criticized by members of the public as being deceptive.
Sincerely, Coleen and Ross Rowley

[yellowdogSC]

I seek forgiveness.

The first thought I had when I first saw this ad on TV was:

"Did he lose his legs or his BRAINS?"

Father, I have.....thought.

[yellowdogSC]

Interesting.

But, consider this. I'm told bUSH NEVER connected Iraq and 9/11….publicly.
I was curious….
Go to the White House website, http://www.whitehouse.gov/query.html?col=colpics&qt=iraq+9%2F11&submit.x=21&submit.y=6.
Search "Iraq 9/11" (imbedded in link). Over 11,000 HITS come up.

Google " "white house" 9/11 iraq ". 2.1 MILLION HITS!

Soon after 9/11, the number of Americans believing the connection was very low, then GREW geometrically for months until it passed 50%. Over a year into action in Iraq, over half the military personnel BELIEVED the connection. To say the White House DID NOT know this was happening publicly is about as disingenuous as any single statement in this young century. The numbers from www.whitehouse.gov are there because they are MEANT to be interpreted thusly.
But still, presented with the above, these same people continue to insist that “bUSH NEVER made the connection publicly.”

How typical. This administration, and the 28%ers too ashamed to admit they made the same stupid mistake twice in a row, are EXACTLY as stupid as this moment’s circumstances dictate.

May (some form of) God help us all.

[yellowdogSC]

To clarify the above: Their words, (paraphrased slightly),

“He NEVER said the words ”There is a connection between Iraq and 9/11.”"

And apparently he didn't.

But the implications of his silence are deafening.

Should be an interesting case, because Baby bUSH will be on trial "en absentia."
More interesting since he can easily say, "But I don't SPEAK english."

[Qbear]

I hope this BLATANT LIE linking 9/11 to Iraq blows up in Cheney/Fletcher's faces!

[smartstuart]

I saw this puke-inducing ad earlier this morning, and thought it was a complete lie-at least the part where they tried to perpetuate THE BIG LIE: that Iraq had something to do with 9/11. The GOP(GANGSTERS ON PARADE) don't care if they tell the truth-they only care whether or not they win elections. Dems will continue to lose those elections if they refuse to see politics as the bloodsport the GOP knows it is!

[Janus]

I'm fairly sure that the mouthpiece for this crowd is none other than Arie Fleisher, the nitwit who was the Puppet's first press secretary whose every utterance about Iraq and its WMD's, imminent threat, etc etc was completely wrong and quite likely deliberately so. What better place for a jibbering hack like him?

[LeftRight]

You may be right akhmed, but this darn well should be false advertising. Just like the swift boat campaign 'gainst kerry. Course, that one wasn't false advertising cause they weren't saying that he didn't do what he claimed, just that they didn't THINK that he did what he claimed....

[akhmed]

Honestly, it's false advertising only if they are literally selling something, that is, they intend for the person who watches the ad directly gives the organization that produced the ad some of his after-tax income in exchange for something the ad promised.

Here, they're just asking for political advocacy. The consumer protection of false advertising doesn't apply.

[peterg76]

The hijackers were Saudis. Maybe "they" means anyone whose petroleum wealth is being exploited. Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Iran, Venezuela. (4 of the 5 founding members of OPEC, but I'm sure that's just a coincidence.)

[jcboston]

hbr17

that's another good claim

Now we need an attorney general to file it

any ideas?

[timm0]

Yeah, fraud is the correct angle to attack. I'm not a lawyer, but I assume that there needs to be an aggrieved party in order for false advertising to be alleged.

However, I'm sure these scumbags have had a host of lawyers pore over their content. The first sign of a challenge to it will result in stuck-pig squealing about infringing on their right to free speech. I imagine the argument to prove to some neocon federal judge that their lies are a theoretical equivalent to shouting fire in a crowded theater will be daunting.

The suggestion that someone like John Edwards take the mantle of the rebuttal to their propaganda effort is compelling, though. If he makes this a lynch-pin element of his campaign (e.g. look at the type of people who are for perma-war in the Middle East? look at the lies and distortions that they're so determined to perpetuate because they have no respect for us and because they are terrorized or have something to gain....) and would offer to provide free friend-of-the-court briefs to any state or federal AG who brings fraud allegations, it'd be very powerful. Even HRC could flash her muscles on this issue - but I certainly won't hold my breath for that.

[hbr17]

There is a better false advertising issue as already pointed out. They claim (sort of?) if you call the 800 number that they will connect you to your congressman, but they only do this if you agree with them. That is false advertising and generating a kind of fraudulent traffic. Imagine if I did a consumer survey and only posted one side of the results (100% of callers love/hat product YYY) this would be a fraud.

[DasBoot]

The ad proves that once you start lying, you have to keep going. So once you argued a connection between Iraq and 9/11, you can't stop, 'cause that's all you got.

I'm all for suing the pants off these people (John Edwards on the job?).

George Orwell would have been proud if he had come up with the name "Freedom's Watch." I am sure it will be in the next edition of the NewSpeak dictionary.

[peterg76]

Now be fair - how are the fascists going to stamp out freedom if they aren't on the watch for it? (Or maybe they mean freedom for just the oil?)