7 ms·

Unlicensed “health coach” claims health advice is free speech–court disagrees

throwaway8879 7y ago
This is judgement I happen to agree with. However, I would like more consistency across every other field as well. Should it be legal for someone fraudulent like Stephen Greer to take people out to the desert to have alien/UFO experiences? Or psychics providing non-free services? I suppose health services being in a category of their own is quite sensible. Losing one's savings to a psychic doesn't have the same mortal consequences as health-coach advice that could kill you.
- fcarraldo 7y ago
  I don’t disagree that fraudulent practices should be made illegal in general, but the difficulty with prosecuting the two examples you’ve given is that neither psychics or UFO fraudsters are participating in regulated industries that require licensing. Determining what is legally fraud in these situations are typically done case-by-case, like here: https://www.cnn.com/2019/03/07/world/maria-duval-scam-criminal-action-invs/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2019/03/07/world/maria-duval-scam-crimin...
  - jMyles 7y ago
    > that neither psychics or UFO fraudsters are participating in regulated industries that require licensing. ...yet?
- b_tterc_p 7y ago
  I believe New York requires all psychics to have signage disclosing that they are purely entertainment. But frankly I don’t understand how psychics stay in business. E.g. Davis square is a pretty trendy area in Somerville outside of Boston (supposedly reddit started there). Decently popular restaurants seem to get kicked out frequently from what I imagine is just hard competition. Yet somehow this small area houses TWO psychics, neither of which seem to ever have customers going in or out. I don’t get how they pay rent, unless they’re just money laundering fronts.
  - narrator 7y ago
    They hook someone with mental health problems, usually with a trust fund or a rich spouse, and then tell them they are all caused by past lives that need to be regressed to or chakras that need to be remotely cleared. They then charge for remote chakra clearing and past life regression and it goes on for years. The retail location is just to hook the whales and then the rest takes place over the phone or Skype usually.
  - 0_gravitas 7y ago
    I live on Long Island and I see an obscene amount of Psychics' "practices" on the day to day, they're everywhere! And they've been around for a time now, I always think that theres no way they can be getting business, but it would seem that they do. A lot more people seem to buy into this nonsense than you'd think, for instance: if I go to meetup.com and restrict the search to groups that are within a 20 mile radius of me, there is not one, not two, but three entire meetup groups dedicated to "harnessing/practicing psychic ability"
- 0xcde4c3db 7y ago
  A lot of businesses like that maintain a stance (often buried in disclaimers) that it's basically performance art and not a "real" service. I'm not sure how effective that is from a legal standpoint, but there's definitely some kind of strategy being employed.
- zzzeek 7y ago
  this is about a case brought by the health department, whose job it is to work for the benefit of public health. UFO people and psychics might take your money but they would not at least directly harm public health so they are not a matter for the health department.
sligor 7y ago
$95 per session is definitely non-free :D
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
ilamont 7y ago
So how would the law work if she were based in California but dispensing advice to someone in Florida via Skype? Or email? Or over the phone? What if the advice was obtained from a book that someone wrote, and that author lives in another state or country? Would it be treated differently if the author happened to reside in Florida? It's cases like this that really shine a light on the inadequacy of local laws to deal with the new digital reality. Not only are a lot of the laws outdated, but I think many senior bureaucrats and elected officials drawing up the laws don't understand how people use technology (and abuse it), or where the technology is going.
shadhawk22 7y ago
Bring common sense back. Research what people are pedaling to ya. Just because they are licensed doesn't mean they aren't pedaling crap as well.
- dymk 7y ago
  I’d like to be able to trust that my doctor has had training, and can provide proof. That’s the case 100% of the time. Licensing boards accomplishes this. There is literally no case in which I’m willing to accept some self taught doctor, so why wouldn’t we want licensing?
  - shadhawk22 7y ago
    I am not saying we don't need licensing. I was saying second opinions can be helpful in making an informed decision. I have gotten bad advice from licensed people before as well.
Overtonwindow 7y ago
I’m still hoping someone can prove me wrong: the unlicensed providing of nutrition advice has never caused actual harm to anyone anywhere ever.
- tokai 7y ago
  How about you start trying to prove yourself right first?
  - AnthonyMouse 7y ago
    > How about you start trying to prove yourself right first? Because if you have to prove something is true before the law allows you to do it, you are prohibited by law from proving it is true until after you have proved it is true.
    - tokai 7y ago
      I have no idea what you're on about. He should just look for supporting sources himself, instead of challenging us to disprove his non-substantiated opinion.
      - AnthonyMouse 7y ago
        This is a discussion about relaxing exclusionary licensing. Asking for research justifying the restrictions prior to enacting or continuing them is reasonable. Asking for research justifying removing them before actually removing them, when doing the research would require removing them, is a catch 22.
- pgeorgi 7y ago
  https://www.heraldsun.com.au/archive/news/swiss-woman-starved-to-death-on-daylight-diet/news-story/d5037b92889834df50634e0f4cc300fb https://www.heraldsun.com.au/archive/news/swiss-woman-starve... "This was the fourth known death linked to breatharianism and Jasmuheen's books since the practice emerged in the early 90s." Unlicensed nutrition advice ("eat and drink nothing") causing actual harm ("death") to anyone anywhere ever ("fourth known death")
ravenstine 7y ago
I find it ironic that the government that still promotes a high carb, low fat diet composed of mostly grains, fruit, and dairy, thinks it's in the moral position to dictate who should be giving health advice. I'll support the court's decision the day choosemyplate.gov is shut down. Thought experiment: Why doesn't the government regulate all forms of advice for profit?
- bigred100 7y ago
  Have you actually read that website? From the FAQs: “Does the Dietary Guidelines promote a low-fat diet? The 2015-2020 Dietary Guidelines does not encourage a low-fat diet (meaning low in total fats) — in fact its healthy eating style examples can contain up to 35% of total calories per day from fat. Consistent with the previous edition of the Dietary Guidelines, the 2015-2020 edition encourages eating styles that emphasize unsaturated fats and are low in saturated fat. Specifically, the Dietary Guidelines recommends keeping saturated fat consumption to less than 10% of calories per day. This recommendation is based on scientific evidence that replacing saturated fat with unsaturated fats is associated with reduced risk of cardiovascular disease. However, it is important to note that replacing saturated fat with carbohydrates does not reduce the risk of cardiovascular disease. Learn more about the difference between saturated and unsaturated fats and common sources of each.” https://www.choosemyplate.gov/2015-2020-dietary-guidelines-answers-your-questions https://www.choosemyplate.gov/2015-2020-dietary-guidelines-a...
- guitarbill 7y ago
  Because "the government" isn't some amorphous hive-mind like the borg, the different parts aren't always going to be aligned. And because when it comes to health, it is highly regulated to avoid charlatans taking advantage of desperate people. This lady wasn't necessarily doing that, but who knows?
- hn_throwaway_99 7y ago
  > thinks it's in the moral position to dictate who should be giving health advice. But that's not really the issue at hand. As the judge said, she's free to give out advice without chatging. The fundamental issue is whether states have the right to set standards for professional services. And while there have been a number of exposés recently about how many states require ridiculous levels of certifications for low-level jobs (usually to the benefit of for-profit colleges and training programs), the law is clear that states do have this right, and I think most people would agree this is overall a good thing if excesses can be reined in. IMO, I'd rather have laws that state that if you are in any of the licensed "advice professions", that if you aren't licensed you have to clearly and loudly proclaim your lack of certification in any marketing materials.
Bostonian 7y ago
If the health advice given by a health coach is bad, people are harmed regardless of whether they paying for the advice. So if the state can paid unlicensed health advice, why not unpaid unlicensed health advice, including advice given over the Internet? I can see, for example, how a health coach who told people not to vaccinate their children could do a lot of harm, but I don't think books and web sites advocating this should be banned.
- gowld 7y ago
  Because it's more reasonable to say that you shouldn't believe what someone is saying if you haven't made a contract for exchange.
- extra88 7y ago
  > why not unpaid unlicensed health advice Because then the First Amendment does take precedence.
  - AnthonyMouse 7y ago
    This is where it all falls apart. On the one hand we have courts upholding copyright against First Amendment challenges because copyright enables that speech since it might otherwise not be funded, and "money is speech" in campaign finance, and striking down Son of Sam Laws. On the other hand we have that commercial speech is less protected. But the central example of that is advertising. You can't use somebody's likeness without their permission in your advertising, even if you can in your criticism of them, because it's commercial speech. But paying somebody to give you information/advice is much more like the first category of cases than the second, isn't it?
ackfoo 7y ago
The real issue here goes far beyond freedom of speech; the real issue is about the nature of knowledge. Human nutrition is not a science for the simple reason that it is not possible to subject it to the scientific method. It is unethical and impractical to divide humans up randomly and feed them different diets to observe the outcome. The NAZIs tried stuff like this, but we have tended to discount their results because the data was obtained under deplorable circumstances. The result is that we don't really know definitively what should compose the human diet. State governments and academic institutions cover up this fact with an avalanche of highly-suspect papers and degrees and training and certification. Unfortunately, most of the research and regulation of human nutrition is subject to interference by economic lobby groups like the dairy industry and the wheat producers. Influence and bias tend to inform the licensing process for nutritionists. Science has little to do with it. Even worse, the state licences a lot of so-called health professionals whose disciplines have even less to do with science than nutritionists: chiropractors, naturopaths, and homeopaths. Just because we dress something up with training and a license does not mean that it is valid. Anyone who wishes to challenge these unfounded and biased, but deeply ingrained, systems will have a hard time. In a just world, only disciplines with a sound scientific basis would be regulated by the state because it is impossible for the state to know whether a licensed, but unscientific, nutritionist is creating more or less harm than this unlicensed, but probably well-meaning, woman.
zzzeek 7y ago
So far the comments seem to come down on the side of "the government shouldn't be interfering with what people want to do". How would Hacker News respond if instead this health consultant was primarily giving out advice that vaccinations cause autism, and that her nutritional advice was in fact how to avoid the need for vaccines ?
- ackfoo 7y ago
  The difference is that we have sound scientific evidence for the efficacy and safety of vaccines. We can give one group of people a vaccine, and another a placebo, in the course of a randomized, controlled, prospective, double-blind human trial. We cannot, however, conduct the same trial for different diets. There is no ethical way to completely control what someone eats in a double-blind fashion. This requires humans in captivity to be fed against their will. Such a trial is neither practical nor ethical, and the results are likely to be far less generalizable to a population because of the conditions of the experiment. We know a lot more about what to feed animals, because it has been possible to conduct controlled experiments upon them. Whether those were, in fact, ethical, is another question. So the problem is that the state-licensed nutritionist does not necessarily have better advice than an unlicensed practitioner, and it is impossible to prove that this is so. While it is a laudable idea to strive for a standard of good nutritional advice, to assume that the science underlying that advice is settled is profoundly naive.
- SllX 7y ago
  It’s a strange thing, but it turns out people have the right to be wrong in what they say. If it makes Americans uncomfortable that the court is taking this opinion, it’s because they are taking the position that this is an infringement on our rights as people. Remember, the Bill or Rights isn’t a granting of rights, it’s a restriction on the government to not infringe on the rights we are born with and which are inalienable.
nqzero 7y ago
if this case holds, it gives the govt the right to regulate every worker in every field (including software) so long as it declares that the intent of the regulation is for a good reason no need to prove that the regulation actually helps, no need to prove that the worker caused harm
- dymk 7y ago
  That’s always been the case. Bad medicine is way more likely to directly kill you than bad software. And yes, that includes software written for medicine, which is subject to licensing and regulation.
ccleve 7y ago
I love the Institute for Justice and the types of cases they take on. This one, unfortunately, is weak. If we say that paid health advice is protected speech, then we can no longer have licensing requirements for doctors who merely give advice. I like doctors to be licensed. I'm normally anti-regulation, but this is an exception. The real issue here is the onerous occupational licensing requirements in Florida. To be a nutritionist in Florida, you need a degree and 900 hours of work. That's far too much. Occupational licensing has become a way for an industry to form a cartel. It's a major public policy problem, and the IJ is right to take it on. They've fought against it in a great many cases and had some success. Unfortunately, though, the First Amendment is a blunt tool and doesn't work very well in this particular case. I wish they had a better tool.
- AnthonyMouse 7y ago
  > I like doctors to be licensed. I think this is a category error. People want doctors to be licensed because they perform medical services. A surgeon or anesthesiologist who screws up can easily kill you. Doctors have the authority to prescribe certain controlled substances that are addictive or fatal in the wrong dosages. The damage "doctors who merely give advice" can do is coterminous with the damage random bloggers can do.
  - md2be 7y ago
    You are conflating the right to carry out a business with the right to free speech. There are many reasons for licensing a business - sufficient liability insurance - self dealing etc.
    - AnthonyMouse 7y ago
      None of which has anything specifically to do with doctors, nor are they to my knowledge typically even required of a business that sells e.g. fashion advice.
donarb 7y ago
Interesting that her lawyer makes the argument that occupational licensing boards act as though the First Amendment doesn't apply to them. Wonder what his response would be if someone wanted to dispense lawyerly advice without a license.
- md2be 7y ago
  Exactly

This is judgement I happen to agree with. However, I would like more consistency across every other field as well. Should it be legal for someone fraudulent like Stephen Greer to take people out to the desert to have alien/UFO experiences? Or psychics providing non-free services? I suppose health services being in a category of their own is quite sensible. Losing one's savings to a psychic doesn't have the same mortal consequences as health-coach advice that could kill you.

fcarraldo 7y ago
I don’t disagree that fraudulent practices should be made illegal in general, but the difficulty with prosecuting the two examples you’ve given is that neither psychics or UFO fraudsters are participating in regulated industries that require licensing. Determining what is legally fraud in these situations are typically done case-by-case, like here: https://www.cnn.com/2019/03/07/world/maria-duval-scam-criminal-action-invs/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2019/03/07/world/maria-duval-scam-crimin...
- jMyles 7y ago
  > that neither psychics or UFO fraudsters are participating in regulated industries that require licensing. ...yet?
b_tterc_p 7y ago
I believe New York requires all psychics to have signage disclosing that they are purely entertainment. But frankly I don’t understand how psychics stay in business. E.g. Davis square is a pretty trendy area in Somerville outside of Boston (supposedly reddit started there). Decently popular restaurants seem to get kicked out frequently from what I imagine is just hard competition. Yet somehow this small area houses TWO psychics, neither of which seem to ever have customers going in or out. I don’t get how they pay rent, unless they’re just money laundering fronts.
- narrator 7y ago
  They hook someone with mental health problems, usually with a trust fund or a rich spouse, and then tell them they are all caused by past lives that need to be regressed to or chakras that need to be remotely cleared. They then charge for remote chakra clearing and past life regression and it goes on for years. The retail location is just to hook the whales and then the rest takes place over the phone or Skype usually.
- 0_gravitas 7y ago
  I live on Long Island and I see an obscene amount of Psychics' "practices" on the day to day, they're everywhere! And they've been around for a time now, I always think that theres no way they can be getting business, but it would seem that they do. A lot more people seem to buy into this nonsense than you'd think, for instance: if I go to meetup.com and restrict the search to groups that are within a 20 mile radius of me, there is not one, not two, but three entire meetup groups dedicated to "harnessing/practicing psychic ability"
0xcde4c3db 7y ago
A lot of businesses like that maintain a stance (often buried in disclaimers) that it's basically performance art and not a "real" service. I'm not sure how effective that is from a legal standpoint, but there's definitely some kind of strategy being employed.
zzzeek 7y ago
this is about a case brought by the health department, whose job it is to work for the benefit of public health. UFO people and psychics might take your money but they would not at least directly harm public health so they are not a matter for the health department.

sligor 7y ago

$95 per session is definitely non-free :D

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]

ilamont 7y ago

So how would the law work if she were based in California but dispensing advice to someone in Florida via Skype? Or email? Or over the phone? What if the advice was obtained from a book that someone wrote, and that author lives in another state or country? Would it be treated differently if the author happened to reside in Florida? It's cases like this that really shine a light on the inadequacy of local laws to deal with the new digital reality. Not only are a lot of the laws outdated, but I think many senior bureaucrats and elected officials drawing up the laws don't understand how people use technology (and abuse it), or where the technology is going.

shadhawk22 7y ago

Bring common sense back. Research what people are pedaling to ya. Just because they are licensed doesn't mean they aren't pedaling crap as well.

dymk 7y ago
I’d like to be able to trust that my doctor has had training, and can provide proof. That’s the case 100% of the time. Licensing boards accomplishes this. There is literally no case in which I’m willing to accept some self taught doctor, so why wouldn’t we want licensing?
- shadhawk22 7y ago
  I am not saying we don't need licensing. I was saying second opinions can be helpful in making an informed decision. I have gotten bad advice from licensed people before as well.

Overtonwindow 7y ago

I’m still hoping someone can prove me wrong: the unlicensed providing of nutrition advice has never caused actual harm to anyone anywhere ever.

tokai 7y ago
How about you start trying to prove yourself right first?
- AnthonyMouse 7y ago
  > How about you start trying to prove yourself right first? Because if you have to prove something is true before the law allows you to do it, you are prohibited by law from proving it is true until after you have proved it is true.
  - tokai 7y ago
    I have no idea what you're on about. He should just look for supporting sources himself, instead of challenging us to disprove his non-substantiated opinion.
    - AnthonyMouse 7y ago
      This is a discussion about relaxing exclusionary licensing. Asking for research justifying the restrictions prior to enacting or continuing them is reasonable. Asking for research justifying removing them before actually removing them, when doing the research would require removing them, is a catch 22.
pgeorgi 7y ago
https://www.heraldsun.com.au/archive/news/swiss-woman-starved-to-death-on-daylight-diet/news-story/d5037b92889834df50634e0f4cc300fb https://www.heraldsun.com.au/archive/news/swiss-woman-starve... "This was the fourth known death linked to breatharianism and Jasmuheen's books since the practice emerged in the early 90s." Unlicensed nutrition advice ("eat and drink nothing") causing actual harm ("death") to anyone anywhere ever ("fourth known death")

ravenstine 7y ago

I find it ironic that the government that still promotes a high carb, low fat diet composed of mostly grains, fruit, and dairy, thinks it's in the moral position to dictate who should be giving health advice. I'll support the court's decision the day choosemyplate.gov is shut down. Thought experiment: Why doesn't the government regulate all forms of advice for profit?

bigred100 7y ago
Have you actually read that website? From the FAQs: “Does the Dietary Guidelines promote a low-fat diet? The 2015-2020 Dietary Guidelines does not encourage a low-fat diet (meaning low in total fats) — in fact its healthy eating style examples can contain up to 35% of total calories per day from fat. Consistent with the previous edition of the Dietary Guidelines, the 2015-2020 edition encourages eating styles that emphasize unsaturated fats and are low in saturated fat. Specifically, the Dietary Guidelines recommends keeping saturated fat consumption to less than 10% of calories per day. This recommendation is based on scientific evidence that replacing saturated fat with unsaturated fats is associated with reduced risk of cardiovascular disease. However, it is important to note that replacing saturated fat with carbohydrates does not reduce the risk of cardiovascular disease. Learn more about the difference between saturated and unsaturated fats and common sources of each.” https://www.choosemyplate.gov/2015-2020-dietary-guidelines-answers-your-questions https://www.choosemyplate.gov/2015-2020-dietary-guidelines-a...
guitarbill 7y ago
Because "the government" isn't some amorphous hive-mind like the borg, the different parts aren't always going to be aligned. And because when it comes to health, it is highly regulated to avoid charlatans taking advantage of desperate people. This lady wasn't necessarily doing that, but who knows?
hn_throwaway_99 7y ago
> thinks it's in the moral position to dictate who should be giving health advice. But that's not really the issue at hand. As the judge said, she's free to give out advice without chatging. The fundamental issue is whether states have the right to set standards for professional services. And while there have been a number of exposés recently about how many states require ridiculous levels of certifications for low-level jobs (usually to the benefit of for-profit colleges and training programs), the law is clear that states do have this right, and I think most people would agree this is overall a good thing if excesses can be reined in. IMO, I'd rather have laws that state that if you are in any of the licensed "advice professions", that if you aren't licensed you have to clearly and loudly proclaim your lack of certification in any marketing materials.

Bostonian 7y ago

If the health advice given by a health coach is bad, people are harmed regardless of whether they paying for the advice. So if the state can paid unlicensed health advice, why not unpaid unlicensed health advice, including advice given over the Internet? I can see, for example, how a health coach who told people not to vaccinate their children could do a lot of harm, but I don't think books and web sites advocating this should be banned.

gowld 7y ago
Because it's more reasonable to say that you shouldn't believe what someone is saying if you haven't made a contract for exchange.
extra88 7y ago
> why not unpaid unlicensed health advice Because then the First Amendment does take precedence.
- AnthonyMouse 7y ago
  This is where it all falls apart. On the one hand we have courts upholding copyright against First Amendment challenges because copyright enables that speech since it might otherwise not be funded, and "money is speech" in campaign finance, and striking down Son of Sam Laws. On the other hand we have that commercial speech is less protected. But the central example of that is advertising. You can't use somebody's likeness without their permission in your advertising, even if you can in your criticism of them, because it's commercial speech. But paying somebody to give you information/advice is much more like the first category of cases than the second, isn't it?

ackfoo 7y ago

The real issue here goes far beyond freedom of speech; the real issue is about the nature of knowledge. Human nutrition is not a science for the simple reason that it is not possible to subject it to the scientific method. It is unethical and impractical to divide humans up randomly and feed them different diets to observe the outcome. The NAZIs tried stuff like this, but we have tended to discount their results because the data was obtained under deplorable circumstances. The result is that we don't really know definitively what should compose the human diet. State governments and academic institutions cover up this fact with an avalanche of highly-suspect papers and degrees and training and certification. Unfortunately, most of the research and regulation of human nutrition is subject to interference by economic lobby groups like the dairy industry and the wheat producers. Influence and bias tend to inform the licensing process for nutritionists. Science has little to do with it. Even worse, the state licences a lot of so-called health professionals whose disciplines have even less to do with science than nutritionists: chiropractors, naturopaths, and homeopaths. Just because we dress something up with training and a license does not mean that it is valid. Anyone who wishes to challenge these unfounded and biased, but deeply ingrained, systems will have a hard time. In a just world, only disciplines with a sound scientific basis would be regulated by the state because it is impossible for the state to know whether a licensed, but unscientific, nutritionist is creating more or less harm than this unlicensed, but probably well-meaning, woman.

zzzeek 7y ago

So far the comments seem to come down on the side of "the government shouldn't be interfering with what people want to do". How would Hacker News respond if instead this health consultant was primarily giving out advice that vaccinations cause autism, and that her nutritional advice was in fact how to avoid the need for vaccines ?

ackfoo 7y ago
The difference is that we have sound scientific evidence for the efficacy and safety of vaccines. We can give one group of people a vaccine, and another a placebo, in the course of a randomized, controlled, prospective, double-blind human trial. We cannot, however, conduct the same trial for different diets. There is no ethical way to completely control what someone eats in a double-blind fashion. This requires humans in captivity to be fed against their will. Such a trial is neither practical nor ethical, and the results are likely to be far less generalizable to a population because of the conditions of the experiment. We know a lot more about what to feed animals, because it has been possible to conduct controlled experiments upon them. Whether those were, in fact, ethical, is another question. So the problem is that the state-licensed nutritionist does not necessarily have better advice than an unlicensed practitioner, and it is impossible to prove that this is so. While it is a laudable idea to strive for a standard of good nutritional advice, to assume that the science underlying that advice is settled is profoundly naive.
SllX 7y ago
It’s a strange thing, but it turns out people have the right to be wrong in what they say. If it makes Americans uncomfortable that the court is taking this opinion, it’s because they are taking the position that this is an infringement on our rights as people. Remember, the Bill or Rights isn’t a granting of rights, it’s a restriction on the government to not infringe on the rights we are born with and which are inalienable.

nqzero 7y ago

if this case holds, it gives the govt the right to regulate every worker in every field (including software) so long as it declares that the intent of the regulation is for a good reason no need to prove that the regulation actually helps, no need to prove that the worker caused harm

dymk 7y ago
That’s always been the case. Bad medicine is way more likely to directly kill you than bad software. And yes, that includes software written for medicine, which is subject to licensing and regulation.

ccleve 7y ago

I love the Institute for Justice and the types of cases they take on. This one, unfortunately, is weak. If we say that paid health advice is protected speech, then we can no longer have licensing requirements for doctors who merely give advice. I like doctors to be licensed. I'm normally anti-regulation, but this is an exception. The real issue here is the onerous occupational licensing requirements in Florida. To be a nutritionist in Florida, you need a degree and 900 hours of work. That's far too much. Occupational licensing has become a way for an industry to form a cartel. It's a major public policy problem, and the IJ is right to take it on. They've fought against it in a great many cases and had some success. Unfortunately, though, the First Amendment is a blunt tool and doesn't work very well in this particular case. I wish they had a better tool.

AnthonyMouse 7y ago
> I like doctors to be licensed. I think this is a category error. People want doctors to be licensed because they perform medical services. A surgeon or anesthesiologist who screws up can easily kill you. Doctors have the authority to prescribe certain controlled substances that are addictive or fatal in the wrong dosages. The damage "doctors who merely give advice" can do is coterminous with the damage random bloggers can do.
- md2be 7y ago
  You are conflating the right to carry out a business with the right to free speech. There are many reasons for licensing a business - sufficient liability insurance - self dealing etc.
  - AnthonyMouse 7y ago
    None of which has anything specifically to do with doctors, nor are they to my knowledge typically even required of a business that sells e.g. fashion advice.

donarb 7y ago

Interesting that her lawyer makes the argument that occupational licensing boards act as though the First Amendment doesn't apply to them. Wonder what his response would be if someone wanted to dispense lawyerly advice without a license.

md2be 7y ago
Exactly