Although I strongly believe all information should be shared without censorship, it should be clarified what is happening here. The people of the court are not

Although I strongly believe all information should be shared without censorship, it should be clarified what is happening here. The people of the court are not ordering him to do something against his will. They are clarifying that the people of College of Psychologists are within their rights to revoke his license. If you play with someone else's toys (in this case a license), they can take it back at any time, for any reason. The only wiggle room I see is if two people, with full knowledge of the details signed a valid contract where the right to hold the license was contingent on certain obligations. This "other people's toys" mental model explains why "the government" gets away with taxing. Other people made the money, both the idea, and produced the paper, and as such they can decide how it is used. It never was an never has been the property of individual people.