In Lane v. Random House, 985 F Supp 141, 152 (D DC 1995), the plaintiff sued a book publisher over statements made in advertisements for a book evaluating conspiracy theories about President Kennedy's assassination. The court held that the full First Amendment protection accorded to the contents of the book must apply equally to the advertisements promoting its sale. (Supra, at 152). See also, Groden v. Random House, 1994 SD NY, Aug. 23, 1994, Martin, J., affd 61 F3d 1045 2d Cir 1995, supra same book and ad as in Lane, ad held privileged under "incidental use" exception, which the court reasoned is driven by First Amendment interest in protecting media's ability to publicize its communications. Similarly, in National Life Ins. Co. v. Phillips Publ. (793 F Supp 627 D Md 1992), the court held that advertisements, which accurately reprinted portions of a newsletter, including allegedly false statements, were entitled to the same First Amendment protection for factual error as the newsletter itself. The court reasoned: "If protected material were moved from a book or magazine interior, to the jacket cover, Plaintiff would have the speech's protection reduced simply because of the change in 'venue.' Such a change of location should not alter the law that governs the dispute." (National Life Ins. Co. v. Phillips Publ., supra, 793 F Supp, at 645, n 33.)