3 ms·
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 hea
by 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 agoBecause 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 agoThis 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?