Resolved: Montgomery Cty, MD does not have the right to ban fortune-telling.

[Mr. Moto]

The story in the Washington Post today indicates that a man is challenging the longstanding ban on fortunetellers in MoCo, and the county is saying all fortunetellers are scam artists because the future cannot be told.

"Gypsies do exist, and they are not criminals," he said, adding that fortunetelling is "something we've been doing for thousands of years."

The term "Gypsy" dates to the 16th century and has been used to describe a European ethnic group, also called the Romany, thought to have originated in India. They were nomadic and often persecuted as troublemaking vagabonds. Some descendants find the term and the stereotypes associated with it offensive.

Like his father, who had been a fortuneteller in the District in the 1980s, Nefedro turned the practice into a business. With family members, he has owned and operated a half-dozen fortunetelling businesses in the Los Angeles area and in Key West, Fla.

But he wanted to move closer to home. Born in the District, he spent much of his youth with friends and family in Bethesda.

Nefedro found a location to rent about two years ago and applied for a business license. He was denied. In May 2008, he filed a lawsuit, which he lost. Now, with the ACLU on board, he wants to continue the fight.

...Laws against fraud are on the books, and if a fortuneteller breaks the law, Quereshi said, the county can prosecute under the existing guidelines. Otherwise, the ban becomes a tool to inhibit Nefedro's First Amendment rights to free expression and to practice his religion, Quereshi said.

Montgomery officials see it differently.

"I don't think it's strange for us to have laws that protect against fraud," said Clifford Royalty, zoning division chief in the Montgomery County attorney's office, adding that "religion has nothing to do with it. He's not made that allegation in the lawsuit."

"The practice is fraudulent," Royalty said, "because no one can forecast the future."

From here. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/08/16/AR2009081601840.html?hpid=moreheadlines)

Now, I certainly don't think people can generally predict the future, and I take a dim personal view of fortunetellers. But the county's reasoning is extremely suspect on First Amendment grounds.

Fraud investigations are conducted against religious bodies from time to time without undue interference in First Amendment freedoms. Barring a practice entirely would constitute this undue interference. Even if the vast majority of fortunetellers are scam artists, this cannot become the justification for banning the practice.

I predict Mr. Nefedro will win, and I hope he does. And I hope he stays out of jail afterward. ;)

[ElvisL1ves]

Are you also opposed to Truth in Advertising laws on the basis that they infringe on advertisers' First Amendment rights?

On what basis do you think anti-fraud laws exist? Clearly it's something less respectable, in your view.

[DanBlather]

This is not a First Ammendment issue because it is commercial speech. He's perfectly free to say fortune telling is real if he is not charging for it, but the city has a right to regulate businesses. I'd like to see all those people out of business, and they can do the same with homeopaths and other BS practices.

ETA: what do you mean "the vast majority" are scam artists? Do you think there are some real ones out there that somehow can't use their amazing powers in any way other than opening skanky little shops to tell people's fortunes? You'd think they could make a fortune on the stock market, at the horse races, or helping the CIA. It would have been nice to have a little warning on 9/11.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

There is no first amendment right to fraud. "Fortunetelling" and the like is akin to selling snake oil or fake rolex watches.

Faith healing should be made illegal too.

[Crotalus]

Well the cops finally busted Madame Marie for telling fortunes better than they do.I'm surprised Mister Nefedro didn't see this coming.

[Jackmannii]

"Gypsies do exist, and they are not criminals," he said, adding that fortunetelling is "something we've been doing for thousands of years."

The term "Gypsy" dates to the 16th century and has been used to describe a European ethnic group, also called the Romany, thought to have originated in India. They were nomadic and often persecuted as troublemaking vagabonds.Way to dispel the stereotype, sleazo.

If you're selling a service on which you cannot possibly deliver, that sounds very much like fraud. This is compounded by the high incidence of exploitative behavior involving the taking of large sums of money under false pretenses by fortune tellers in general. The only quandary here is the question of whether there is some psychological benefit to the credulous by having their fortunes told, much like placebo effect in people treated with homeopathy or other form of woo.

Montgomery County has it right in my opinion. Tell fortunes all you want, just don't expect to make money from your activities. "Free speech" and no people duped out of their savings. Win-win.

[Shodan]

Newspapers run astrology columns, and are available for sale within the Montgomery City limits. Maybe the authorities can compel Mr. Nefedro to run a disclaimer saying "For entertainment purposes only" or the like. But forbid altogether?

The exits polls in Florida in 2000 were just as wrong as any fortune-teller, and they weren't banned.

Regards,
Shodan

[Diogenes the Cynic]

Christ Almighty, I can't believe you managed to find a way to shoehorn a partisan political snipe into this thread. You are the king of political non-sequiturs.

[Mr. Moto]

I am not saying that Montgomery County cannot ban fraud - nor that they cannot use that justification to aggressively investigate fortunetellers and run all or nearly all of them out of the county. But simply banning commercial fortunetelling as a practice probably runs into issues.

There are numberless religious businesses in this country selling literature and other paraphernalia. Nobody is suggesting that they are in violation of the commercial code because of the nature of these messages. Like it or not, there is a First Amendment aspect to this argument - which is why other laws banning the practice were overturned, per my link.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

Is there a first amendment right to sell sugar pills as heart medication?

You have a religious right to believe whatever you want. You don't have a right to sell products or services which don't work.

[ElvisL1ves]

The exits polls in Florida in 2000 were just as wrong as any fortune-tellerYou know they weren't.

[Shodan]

You know they weren't.This is why my analogy was exactly on target. That the polls were right is an article of faith, not subject to disproof. Same for the astrology columns. Same for fortune-telling.

Therefore you have to either allow them all, or ban them all. Add some kind of disclaimer as I mentioned, and anyone who takes them seriously does so at his own risk.

You are never going to be able to convince people who believe in fortune-telling or the polls in 2000, of reality. But adults have the right to delude themselves if they want.

The article says quite clearly - ...Laws against fraud are on the books, and if a fortuneteller breaks the law, Quereshi said, the county can prosecute under the existing guidelines.
Regards,
Shodan

[Hentor the Barbarian]

Why not just set up a licensure system as exists for any other professional service? All you need to do is pass the licensure test and then you can hawk your services to your heart's content.

That way, the minority of valid fortune tellers that Mr. Moto has in mind are not needlessly discriminated against. In fact, they would benefit, since the general public would have greater trust in their profession.

[ElvisL1ves]

That the polls were right is an article of faith, not subject to disproof.Wrong, but not surprising. A small but solid plurality of Florida voters did leave the polls believing they had voted for Gore. A full count (not "re") of all ballots cast in the state confirmed that. Exit polls everywhere else, every time, done in the same way, did match the eventual results obtained without partisan intervention.

But belief that the polls were wrong that one time, now that's an article of faith so strong that there are some who believe it even today, facts be damned, to the point where they can engage in Freudian projection about it.

IOW, thanks but no thanks for your roughly 9,000th "No U" post in GD.

[ElvisL1ves]

Why not just set up a licensure system as exists for any other professional service? All you need to do is pass the licensure test and then you can hawk your services to your heart's content.
My town does issue fortuneteller's licenses. No test, though. What would that consist of, anyway? A minimum accuracy percentage, maybe?

[Shodan]

Wrong, but not surprising. A small but solid plurality of Florida voters did leave the polls believing they had voted for Gore. A full count (not "re") of all ballots cast in the state confirmed that. Exit polls everywhere else, every time, done in the same way, did match the eventual results obtained without partisan intervention.

But belief that the polls were wrong that one time, now that's an article of faith so strong that there are some who believe it even today, facts be damned, to the point where they can engage in Freudian projection about it.

IOW, thanks but no thanks for your roughly 9,000th "No U" post in GD.

No, the stars were just out of alignment. And Jesus created the dinosaurs to test our faith.

Regards,
Shodan

[Jackmannii]

There are numberless religious businesses in this country selling literature and other paraphernalia. Nobody is suggesting that they are in violation of the commercial code because of the nature of these messages. Like it or not, there is a First Amendment aspect to this argument - which is why other laws banning the practice were overturned, per my link.How is fortunetelling a specific religious practice? Nefedro says in the article that fortunetellingis part of his "heritage", and then the ACLU guy claims it's religious:

"...the ban becomes a tool to inhibit Nefedro's First Amendment rights to free expression and to practice his religion, Quereshi said."

If it's a "heritage", I can foresee more trouble in court. Genital mutilation can be part of your "heritage", but it doesn't mean American law has to allow it.

I can comprehend, dubious as it is, the Wiccan getting away with "soothsaying" on religious grounds, but our self-described Gypsy is going to have to explain how his "religion" entitles him to pocket loot from morons who think he can see the future.

Sometimes the ACLU is HUA, and this is one of those times.

[ElvisL1ves]

no, the stars were just out of alignment. And jesus created the dinosaurs to test our faith.

Regards,
shodan

9001 ...

[Left Hand of Dorkness]

I'm with Moto on this one. Belief in magic is part of many religious traditions--especially if magic is defined something like "performing symbolic noncommunicative acts in order to effect material change in the world." Anyone who lights a candle to ask God to protect a loved one is engaging in theurgy. Shall we ban the sale of Veladoras?

Books are written all the time about the coming end times. These are little more than mass fortune-telling. Should their sale be banned?

Where I think we may draw the line is between claims of magic and claims of scientific efficacy. If someone wants to sell sugar pills that contain the spiritual essence of St. HunterSThompson, claiming that these pills will cure your ennui with your middle-class lifestyle, have at it. If they want to claim that the pills contain an herbal extract that's scientifically proven to improve your sex life, they better have the studies to back it up, or be prepared to face fraud charges.

The first amendment protects religious beliefs, not false claims of scientific beliefs.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

The statute does not prevent believing in or practicing fortune telling, only in selling it as a commercial service. You can still do it for free.

[Left Hand of Dorkness]

The statute does not prevent believing in or practicing fortune telling, only in selling it as a commercial service. You can still do it for free.Yes, I'm aware of that. Should we similarly ban the selling of books of prophecies, the selling of religious candles, etc.? Should it be illegal to draw a salary as a preacher, unless you're Unitarian?

Or should we declare that purchase of religious/magical services is a caveat emptor situation?

I'd far prefer to do the latter, because I'm not sure how you do the former without rewriting the first amendment.

[DSYoungEsq]

Left Hand of Dorkness, would you think a ban on newspapers would be allowed under the First Amendment? That is, you can report the news, but you cannot charge for people to read it?

ETA: Sorry, that's better addressed to Dio.

[Shodan]

The statute does not prevent believing in or practicing fortune telling, only in selling it as a commercial service. You can still do it for free.

You can also do it as a business as long as you do not make fraudulent claims about it. Or rather, you could do it as a business if there were not this pointless law against it.

I will never understand it. All the Dopers who want to legalize prostitution and drugs are all aghast at the notion of letting some fool go to a fortune-teller if she wants to.

How is this any different from gambling? Claims that you will get rich from gambling are just as valid as claims that your palm predicts your future. Sometimes someone wins a jackpot. Sometimes cold reading hits a nerve. As long as they don't guarantee you will win the jackpot or they can read the future, then leave them alone.

Regards,
Shodan

[Diogenes the Cynic]

I'm for banning any attempt to sell magical services. Why should we allow religious loopholes for scams and frauds? Let them give that shit away all they want, but once they make it commercial, they are subject to the same controls as anybody else.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

Left Hand of Dorkness, would you think a ban on newspapers would be allowed under the First Amendment? That is, you can report the news, but you cannot charge for people to read it?

ETA: Sorry, that's better addressed to Dio.
How is a newspaper defrauding anybody, or not delivering on what it claims to deliver?

[Diogenes the Cynic]

You can also do it as a business as long as you do not make fraudulent claims about it. Or rather, you could do it as a business if there were not this pointless law against it.

I will never understand it. All the Dopers who want to legalize prostitution and drugs are all aghast at the notion of letting some fool go to a fortune-teller if she wants to.

How is this any different from gambling? Claims that you will get rich from gambling are just as valid as claims that your palm predicts your future. Sometimes someone wins a jackpot. Sometimes cold reading hits a nerve. As long as they don't guarantee you will win the jackpot or they can read the future, then leave them alone.
How are drugs and prostitution fraudulent products? Even with gambling, there actually is a legitimate chance you could win. There is no theoretical chance at all that another person can see your future. Why should people be able to sell entirely fraudulent products? Can I sell stero boxes full of sawdust (and tell the customers they have stereos in them) if I claim to have a religious belief that the sawdust really is a stereo?

What kind of commercial fraud could NOT be defended as religious freedom if all you have to say is that you personally believe your own claims?

ETA, nobody's trying to stop anybody from going to fortune tellers, only trying to stop them from being financially defrauded.

[YogSosoth]

Since no one can tell the future, they should ban it. Its fraud

Exit polling relies on statistical data which can be extrapolated. Using hard science is not fraud, even if wrong

[Larry Borgia]

Should Borders or Amazon be prevented from selling books on Astrology or Homeopathy?

[Diogenes the Cynic]

Should Borders or Amazon be prevented from selling books on Astrology or Homeopathy?
There's no claim of a personal service in that.

Should people be allowed to sell plastic rings and say they believe it's really gold? Should they be able to sell water and say it's medicine? Wait, I guess they already do that.

[Mr. Moto]

How is a newspaper defrauding anybody, or not delivering on what it claims to deliver?

Let's take the Weekly World News as an example, when it was published. Had "news" right in the title, but seemed to report anything but.

Was it fraud? Would you have shut them down?

[Jackmannii]

How is this any different from gambling? Claims that you will get rich from gambling are just as valid as claims that your palm predicts your future.I don't think anyone, from casinos to states that have lotteries, can legally claim that you'll get rich from gambling.Should Borders or Amazon be prevented from selling books on Astrology or Homeopathy?These businesses do not make money from offering such services. You can do your own horoscope or make homeopathic "drugs" that consist entirely of water for yourself, if you choose.

In an ideal world, it would be possible to act against individuals/businesses that claim you'll reap monetary returns on donations for alleged religious enterprises (like the preacher empire profiled in the New York Times yesterday, which depends on harvesting huge amounts of money from gullible people who think they'll get rich from turning over their savings to these dirtbags). The difference in this case is the nebulousness of the claim that fortunetelling is part of some Gypsy "religion". What's the evidence for that?

"Tradition" and "heritage" are not enough. On numerous occasions, gypsies/Romany people have been implicated in other types of fraud as well as organized theft involving the creation of distractions in stores while members of the group haul away merchandise. Should such activity be protected under a religious exclusion clause as well?

[Diogenes the Cynic]

Let's take the Weekly World News as an example, when it was published. Had "news" right in the title, but seemed to report anything but.

Was it fraud? Would you have shut them down?
It was a joke publication.

[RickJay]

Is there a first amendment right to sell sugar pills as heart medication?
No, but there's a right to sell sugar pills if you say on the box, "These are sugar pills and not real heart medication."

I've NEVER seen a fortune-telling business that did not have a clearly worded disclaimer stating words to the effect of "This is for entertainment purposes only."

The only place I've ever seen this stuff passed off as truth is in newspaper astrology columns. I don't see disclaimers on those. And yet those are legal in Montgomery City.

I'm for banning any attempt to sell magical services.
So Penn & Teller shows should be illegal? Well, they admit they're not really magic - but so do most fortune tellers. How about David Copperfield? He doesn't actually come out and admit it's all trickery.

[Shodan]

I don't think anyone, from casinos to states that have lotteries, can legally claim that you'll get rich from gambling.
One of the mottoes of the lottery in my state is 'It Could Happen". And there is all kinds of stuff on their website about the people who won millions. Not a word about everyone who lost. There is a huge billboard I used to see every day on my way to work, with the jackpot on it. The jackpot was up over $200 million at one point. The person who won it got rich from gambling for most people's definition of "rich" and "gambling", and it was certainly advertised.

These businesses do not make money from offering such services. You can do your own horoscope or make homeopathic "drugs" that consist entirely of water for yourself, if you choose. And you can do your own fortune-telling, as well.
ETA, nobody's trying to stop anybody from going to fortune tellers, only trying to stop them from being financially defrauded.If the fortune-tellers make fraudulent claims, they can be prosecuted under the law just as other businesses are. Why should a fortune-teller who is not making a fraudulent claim be prevented from doing business?

I go to a fortune-teller, and she looks at my palm and says, "You have some connection to a woman named Mary." (I actually heard a psychic do this, albeit on the radio). What fraud is being committed?

Regards,
Shodan

[Larry Borgia]

"I can predict your future for five dollars."
"You can? Gosh! Here's five dollars, what's my future like?"
Peers into crystal ball "I see that you will face difficult obstacles, but you have a strong heart and a clear mind, and you will overcome them, though it will take effort."
"Thanks, Mr. fortune teller! I really feel better, that was totally worth the five dollars."

Why should the state be involved in this? And how is it different from what most Priests, Rabbis, Ministers, and Imams do?

[Sailboat]

Should Borders or Amazon be prevented from selling books on Astrology or Homeopathy?

No. But two homeopaths shouldn't be allowed to marry.

:)

[bup]

There should just be a license. The test for the license would be to accurately predict one hundred coin flips in a row.

[treis]

Why should a fortune-teller who is not making a fraudulent claim be prevented from doing business?

They shouldn't, but your hypothetical fortune-teller doesn't exist. Anyone claiming to be able to see the future is lying and by definition committing fraud.

That being said, I don't think there should be a ban on fortune telling. If idiots want to waste their money on them, that's there business. However, I don't see a constitutional right to be able to charge money for fortune telling. Fortune advertise a service that is impossible to perform. That is technically fraud and there is no reason it can't be specifically banned.

[Larry Borgia]

Should Borders or Amazon be prevented from selling books on Astrology or Homeopathy? There's no claim of a personal service in that.So if I say "Gimme 50 bucks and I'll tell your future" that's not OK, but if I say "gimme fifty bucks and I'll give you this book which will tell you how to predict the future" that's OK?

[Bryan Ekers]

Just pass an amendment banning stupidity. That'll fix everything.

[ITR champion]

The story in the Washington Post today indicates that a man is challenging the longstanding ban on fortunetellers in MoCo, and the county is saying all fortunetellers are scam artists because the future cannot be told.
Incidentally, today's Washington Post aslo says:"Health care will consume 40 percent of the national economy by 2050". In this case they included the caveat "if current trends continue", but many newspaper articles don't even bother with that. They present facts about oil supplies in 2075 or the obesity rate for generations not even born yet as if those were proven facts, rather than predictions. Yet nobody wants to ban newspapers for those statements.

Fraud is when the seller hides information from the buyer with the intention of deception. Fortune-tellers hide nothing. Information about what fortune-tellers claim and how much evidence backs them up is readily available to the public. If a member of the public chooses to ignore that information, that's none of the government's business. It's a situation quite different from the mislabeling of food, in which the buyer has no way to get accurate information.

False advertising occurs all the time. For instance, Bubbas Burgers claims that their burgers are the best you'll ever taste, which (in my instance at least) was untrue. However, they were not withholding any information from me, so it was not fraud.

[sqweels]

No. But two homeopaths shouldn't be allowed to marry.
Eugenics! You're trying to stop homely, pathetic people from reproducing!

[Left Hand of Dorkness]

There's no claim of a personal service in that.

What the shit does that have to do with anything? Surely you can't be staking your definition of "fraud" on the offering of personal services.

Here's an interesting article about the legal definition of fraud (http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Fraud). Some key points:
Fraud must be proved by showing that the defendant's actions involved five separate elements: (1) a false statement of a material fact,(2) knowledge on the part of the defendant that the statement is untrue, (3) intent on the part of the defendant to deceive the alleged victim, (4) justifiable reliance by the alleged victim on the statement, and (5) injury to the alleged victim as a result.
#2 will be very difficult in many cases; plenty of fortunetellers are sincere in their belief in their own psychic powers.

But if you can presume #2, why on earth would you allow Amazon to sell books of prophecy or books on astrology? Shouldn't you ban the sale of such books?

[begbert2]

What the shit does that have to do with anything? Surely you can't be staking your definition of "fraud" on the offering of personal services.

Here's an interesting article about the legal definition of fraud (http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Fraud). Some key points:

#2 will be very difficult in many cases; plenty of fortunetellers are sincere in their belief in their own psychic powers.

But if you can presume #2, why on earth would you allow Amazon to sell books of prophecy or books on astrology? Shouldn't you ban the sale of such books?It would be quite legitimate to sell a book on the methodology, presuming that you don't state that the methods actually work.

Which would probably leave one or two books on the shelf.

[Left Hand of Dorkness]

It would be quite legitimate to sell a book on the methodology, presuming that you don't state that the methods actually work.

Which would probably leave one or two books on the shelf.
So are you proposing that we ban the sale of any books of astrology that claim they'll help you find your soul mate, learn more about your personality, etc.? That books on performing magic with minerals should be banned (from sale)? That books purporting to predict the future using Revelations should be banned from sale?

[begbert2]

So are you proposing that we ban the sale of any books of astrology that claim they'll help you find your soul mate, learn more about your personality, etc.? That books on performing magic with minerals should be banned (from sale)? That books purporting to predict the future using Revelations should be banned from sale?Who, me? I never proposed making selling idiocy to fools illegal in the first place. And blanket bans are dubious on point #2 mentioned previously. But yes, if you were able to demonstrate that a particular book was written by a nonbeliever to make a buck, and that book asserted that the not-believed-in things were true, then I think you could in theory make a case for fraud against the author.

Just keep in mind, that belief in the contents of your book is a defense.

(Yes, I'm aware I seem to be backtracking - but in the prior post point #2 was presumed, and now it isn't.)

[Left Hand of Dorkness]

Who, me? I never proposed making selling idiocy to fools illegal in the first place. And blanket bans are dubious on point #2 mentioned previously. But yes, if you were able to demonstrate that a particular book was written by a nonbeliever to make a buck, and that book asserted that the not-believed-in things were true, then I think you could in theory make a case for fraud against the author.

Just keep in mind, that belief in the contents of your book is a defense.Presume for a moment that the CEO of Amazon isn't a believer in, say, Sexual Astrology (http://www.amazon.com/Sexual-Astrology-Sign-Sign-Sensual/dp/0440180201/ref=sr_1_6?ie=UTF8&qid=1250553939&sr=8-6). What do you think about prosecuting him for fraud?

[begbert2]

Presume for a moment that the CEO of Amazon isn't a believer in, say, Sexual Astrology (http://www.amazon.com/Sexual-Astrology-Sign-Sign-Sensual/dp/0440180201/ref=sr_1_6?ie=UTF8&qid=1250553939&sr=8-6). What do you think about prosecuting him for fraud?I think there's a heck of a legal difference between writing a book and selling somebody else's. At no point do I beleive that Amazon asserts the factuality of any of their books -not even the overtly fictional ones!- so they can't be nailed for asserting something about them that isn't true. Uh, unless they lie about the price or something.

[Oakminster]

Papa did whatever he could
Preach a little gospel
Sell a couple of bottles of Dr. Good....
--Cher, Gypsies, Tramps, & Thieves

Meh. Let him run his business. Consider it a tax on the stupid.

[jsgoddess]

I consider fortune-telling a lot like going to the movies. Both of them are active suspensions of disbelief for the purposes of entertainment. Yes, some chuckleheads can take them too seriously, but that's why they're chuckleheads.

[Calculon]

While generally I would be happier if no-one went to fortune tellers, I think the law is stupid and the wrong way to go about it.

Technically, one can easily claim that someone doing "fortune telling" is really only agreeing to provide a performance for the person, not actually engaging in fortune telling. The correlation between the performance and the future is then left up to the indiviual and their beliefs.

So for instance just about every "fortune teller" that I have seen does not expressly sell fortune telling. What they sell is palm readings, tarot card readings, ect. Obviously the implication in these things is that these readings are in some way connected to future events. But this is not actually stated be the people selling these services. If someone offers to give say a tarot reading for money, and they do actually perform said reading, then they are fulfilling what they promised. If they took the money and did nothing, THAT then becomes fraud.

Secondly, it is also difficult to claim fraud becauses claims of the future, even if entirely made up, still may be true. Indeed some of the skills of professional "fortune tellers" is to make the claims so vague they could apply to anything, and are thus never wrong. They also often excel in "cold reading", and are thus able to make many true statements, even if the source of them is not magical. Thridly, there is also the problem that given a prediction, people can make it come true, and thus it is not necessarily false. Really, if "fortune tellers" made lots of specific predictions that were routinely false, people would see through them rather quickly and they would be out of business.

Ultimately I can't see any compelling reason for banning this sort of thing, while allowing other forms of public prognostication like stock reports and the like. The only reason for banning this in particular seems to be ideological (that fortune telling is a priori impossible), and thus is should be allowed under the first amendment.

Calculon.

[The Other Waldo Pepper]

I think there's a heck of a legal difference between writing a book and selling somebody else's. At no point do I beleive that Amazon asserts the factuality of any of their books -not even the overtly fictional ones!

What about the ones they classify as nonfiction?

[Gary "Wombat" Robson]

Why not just set up a licensure system as exists for any other professional service? All you need to do is pass the licensure test and then you can hawk your services to your heart's content.As suggested above, this would work beautifully. Predict the winning lottery tickets three times in a row, plus the next four hands dealt in a poker game, the color of the next six cars to drive around the corner, and the results of ten rolls of a pair of D10 dice. No licenses ever issued, problem goes away.

Nefedro says in the article that fortunetellingis part of his "heritage", and then the ACLU guy claims it's religious:

"...the ban becomes a tool to inhibit Nefedro's First Amendment rights to free expression and to practice his religion, Quereshi said."This is utter hogwash. It's easy to claim that practicing various rites is part of your religion, but not setting up shop on a street corner and performing the rites for money for strangers.

As for the book argument, the publication of a book about how to tell fortunes would certainly be protected under the first amendment. The bookseller is basically a common carrier, selling whatever books are available without taking responsibility for their content.

Disclaimer: I own a bookstore. My policy is that I will get any book a customer requests if it's available through my regular channels, but I reserve the right to pick and choose what gets space on my shelves. I believe that you have the right to write a book about whatever you wish, and the right to read a book about whatever you wish.

However, I believe that if a person is convicted for practicing fraud, that person should be forbidden to write/sell books related to that subject area (e.g., if you're convicted of fraudulently peddling patent medicines, you shouldn't be able to just switch over to writing books about patent medicines to continue profiting from your fraud).

[Snowboarder Bo]

You can also do it as a business as long as you do not make fraudulent claims about it. Or rather, you could do it as a business if there were not this pointless law against it.

I will never understand it. All the Dopers who want to legalize prostitution and drugs are all aghast at the notion of letting some fool go to a fortune-teller if she wants to.

How is this any different from gambling? Claims that you will get rich from gambling are just as valid as claims that your palm predicts your future. Sometimes someone wins a jackpot. Sometimes cold reading hits a nerve. As long as they don't guarantee you will win the jackpot or they can read the future, then leave them alone.

Regards,
Shodan

But no casino anywhere claims you will get rich, only that you can if you win. Big difference.

[Snowboarder Bo]

Let's take the Weekly World News as an example, when it was published. Had "news" right in the title, but seemed to report anything but.

Was it fraud? Would you have shut them down?

WWW was satire, not news.

[Snowboarder Bo]

One of the mottoes of the lottery in my state is 'It Could Happen". And there is all kinds of stuff on their website about the people who won millions. Not a word about everyone who lost.

"It Could Happen" is not the same as "It Will Happen".

[Left Hand of Dorkness]

I think there's a heck of a legal difference between writing a book and selling somebody else's. At no point do I beleive that Amazon asserts the factuality of any of their books -not even the overtly fictional ones!- so they can't be nailed for asserting something about them that isn't true. Uh, unless they lie about the price or something.
From the link:
Product Description
Now you can discover the true happiness meant for you and you alone. This personal sign-by-sign guide shows you how to:
Chart Your Compatibility--Month-by-Month Matchmaking for Every Sign
Meet Your Mate--The Right Timing and Approach
Understand Your Own Needs and Desires
Please Your Partner--And Yourself
Fulfill Your Romantic Destiny
Sun signs are fine, but love signs light the way to happiness. The stars show you the way to navigate the romantic zodiac, liberate your sensual self, and achieve lasting love.
Granted, that's under "editorial reviews"--but if they're referring to non-in-house editors, I sure can't tell that from this page. Those claims appear to be claims made by Amazon about the book.

Call the FBI?

[Shodan]

But no casino anywhere claims you will get rich, only that you can if you win. Big difference.Then in what way is that different from this -
"I can predict your future for five dollars."
"You can? Gosh! Here's five dollars, what's my future like?"
Peers into crystal ball "I see that you will face difficult obstacles, but you have a strong heart and a clear mind, and you will overcome them, though it will take effort."
"Thanks, Mr. fortune teller! I really feel better, that was totally worth the five dollars."

Regards,
Shodan

[Jackmannii]

It should be mentioned that these fortunetelling businesses can rake in big money. According to this site (http://www.gypsypsychicscams.com/) the average gypsy fortunetelling operation makes a quarter-million dollars a year. There have been many major victims losing tens and even hundreds of thousands of dollars to fraudsters (http://www.fraudtech.bizland.com/gypsy_introduction.htm).

And before anyone claims that exposing this particular subculture is racist, that's just what the criminal element wants. Not so different from that Mafia kingpin decades ago who organized an anti-defamation league. And the law in Montgomery County (and in other places from what I've heard) does not single out any particular ethnic group.

Sure, we could just dismiss the victims as "chuckleheads". But part of the purpose of consumer fraud laws is to protect people from the consequences of their stupidity and prevent the unscrupulous from taking advantage of them. Some will always find ways to lose their money in scams. We don't have to make it easy for the fraud artists by permitting them to openly set up shop.

As to Shodan's state lottery motto (supposedly "It Could Happen"), my state's lottery motto is "Odds Are, You'll Have Fun". Neither offers the complete picture, but far from a promise that you'll get rich.

[ElvisL1ves]

Then in what way is that different from thisIn that what Larry Borgia has the fortuneteller saying is true - for everyone.

Well, there is often contrary evidence for the "clear mind" part, but not in the eye of the subject himself.

[Ravenman]

I've had a family member massively defrauded by fortune tellers. Hell, yes, I think the practice should be banned, not just in Montgomery County, but basically everywhere in which people do not wish swindlers to prey on vulnerable people.

Let's get real for a second: the general stock and trade of fortune tellers isn't $5 palm readings. At four readings an hour, let's say, 8 hours a day, do you think a fortune teller is earning their keep with those low-cost items? And have you ever seen a fortune teller anywhere but the Jersey shore that's that busy?

That's a loss leader to get people in for bigger, more expensive seances, readings, or whathaveyou. As in, hundreds or thousands of dollars per session. But in general, that isn't the end.

Unlike a book or a newspaper, the personal contact with a fortune teller is what sets the hook for more and bigger scams. As in, wiping out bank accounts and identity theft. Books can't threaten or intimidate you into not telling the police about the scam.

As for the First Amendment issue, I'm fine if people want to practice fortune telling as a non-commercial, religious activity. But if one advances a comparison between fortune telling and the sale of newspapers, I would ask, what is the public interest in making sure fortune telling is available at a price to the citizens of our country? Anyone can answer that question for a newspaper. I can't think of why fortune telling would be any more deserving of First Amendment protection than any other kind of speech that doesn't have that protection, such as fighting words, defamation, obscenity, or the political activities of government employees.

[jsgoddess]

Sure, we could just dismiss the victims as "chuckleheads". But part of the purpose of consumer fraud laws is to protect people from the consequences of their stupidity and prevent the unscrupulous from taking advantage of them. Some will always find ways to lose their money in scams. We don't have to make it easy for the fraud artists by permitting them to openly set up shop.

I just don't see a difference between fortune-telling and diet books, fortune-telling and religious books, fortune-telling and any of the number of industries that are, in my opinion, built on lies and false promises.

[Mr. Moto]

Sure, we could just dismiss the victims as "chuckleheads". But part of the purpose of consumer fraud laws is to protect people from the consequences of their stupidity and prevent the unscrupulous from taking advantage of them. Some will always find ways to lose their money in scams. We don't have to make it easy for the fraud artists by permitting them to openly set up shop.

Nowhere have I claimed that we should - fraud laws can work just fine without banning any religious practice right off the bat. As I noted in my OP, they can even be brought to bear against religious leaders who aren't Romani if they have committed actual fraud - Jim Bakker went to prison for fraud, and YEC evangelist Kent Hovind (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kent_Hovind) is there now for tax fraud.

So keeping this in mind, and noting the presence of that pesky First Amendment, I do not think an absolute ban on fortunetellers can be sustained, per my OP. And it seems like most posters here in this thread agree with this statement in general, even if they might disagree as to the form the statute should take.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

I just don't see a difference between fortune-telling and diet books, fortune-telling and religious books, fortune-telling and any of the number of industries that are, in my opinion, built on lies and false promises.
Do you see a difference between writing a woo woo book extolling"Alternative Medicine," and actually pretending to be a doctor and trying to practice medicine without a license?

[E-Sabbath]

Mr. Moto, here's the question, then. What is fraud? Can an absolute ban on anything be sustained, given that pesky First Amendment, even if it is fraudulent?

Given that this speech is commercial in nature, I think the pesky First Amendment may be limited. This is not a matter of religious conviction, either, as he has not made that argument.
He simply states that he should be able to predict people's futures for money, because he is convinced he can do it. He offers no backing for this statement, other than his personal conviction.

[jsgoddess]

Do you see a difference between writing a woo woo book extolling"Alternative Medicine," and actually pretending to be a doctor and trying to practice medicine without a license?

A difference in degree, not in kind.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

A difference in degree, not in kind.
So it should be legal to practice medicine without a license?

[jsgoddess]

So it should be legal to practice medicine without a license?

So it should be illegal to be a prosperity preacher? See, I can jump to extreme arguments, too! Whee!

[Diogenes the Cynic]

So it should be illegal to be a prosperity preacher?
Depends on if you're selling it as a product.
See, I can jump to extreme arguments, too! Whee!
I wasn't making an extreme argument. I trying to find out what people would agree IS fraud, and why the First Amendment doesn't protect them too.

[jsgoddess]

Can someone explain the difference between me telling your future through palm-reading and me telling your future through Bible-reading?

Can someone explain the difference between me going and spending ten bucks at the movies and me going and spending ten bucks at the fortune-teller? What if the movie is really bad, does that change things? Battlefield Earth? GLITTER?

Yes, I'm sure there are people who go and spend money they don't have to fortune tellers, who are selling fiction.

And I'm sure there are people who go and spend money they don't have on Star Wars outfits. And those who send money they don't have to Rod Parsley or QVC or who buy 40,000 Magic Erasers because it says "magic" on them when it's really just a strange sponge that scrapes the top layer off whatever you're sponging.

[jsgoddess]

Depends on if you're selling it as a product.

I wasn't making an extreme argument. I trying to find out what people would agree IS fraud, and why the First Amendment doesn't protect them too.

There has to be a certain level of competency required of people before what happens to them is fraud. If you buy a Mr. Clean Magic Eraser thinking you're getting something magical, you're not being defrauded. You're just stupid as shit.

It isn't a perfect and bright and shiny line. It's a combination of how plausible the claims are, how many people are believing it to their detriment, and what the tradition is of that particular product.

Six buildings in a row. Building 1 is a Catholic church. 2 is Rod Parsley's. 3 is Scientologists. 4 is a chiropractor. 5 is a fortune-teller. 6 is a faith healer.

Which ones are fraudulent? I bet there would be a ton of answers, all based on how we perceive each of these practices and the people who give them money.

[Jackmannii]

Can someone explain the difference between me going and spending ten bucks at the movies and me going and spending ten bucks at the fortune-teller? Even at the worst of movies*, none of the characters have leaped off the screen to tell me that my money is cursed and that they can remove the bad vibes for me for a small consideration.

I'm still waiting for that explanation of how the Gypsy/Romani "religion" requires fortunetelling for salvation, or whatever - and thus is a First Amendment-protected activity.


*i.e. "Bruno".

[Polycarp]

You can also do it as a business as long as you do not make fraudulent claims about it. Or rather, you could do it as a business if there were not this pointless law against it.

I will never understand it. All the Dopers who want to legalize prostitution and drugs are all aghast at the notion of letting some fool go to a fortune-teller if she wants to.

How is this any different from gambling? Claims that you will get rich from gambling are just as valid as claims that your palm predicts your future. Sometimes someone wins a jackpot. Sometimes cold reading hits a nerve. As long as they don't guarantee you will win the jackpot or they can read the future, then leave them alone.

Regards,
Shodan

There is a lot of truth in this post. The police power enables communities to protect their inhabitants from people making fraudulent claims regarding their product or service. I can sell you St. John's Wort; I can even claim that many people experience a higher, better mood most of the time when taking it. What I cannot do is claim it is a cure for depression, or a panacea for people's emotional problems. (And this is by way of example; please do not attack it by getting specific about what FDA will and will not allow, though I would be curious.)

Even assuming, contrary to evidence, for the sake of argument, that people descended from a Gypsy woman and Lazarus Long on one of his time trips can indeed foretell the future accurately (;)), there is no way, short a rigorous scientific test over time, to distinguish a valid fortune-teller from a scam artist claiming to have that ability. So prohibiting fortune telling for money tied to any claims to have this ability is a legitimate use of the police power.

However, there are many people, skeptical of any claims to be able to read the future, who nonetheless might enjoy the experience of going to a fortune teller, who would pay, say $20, to have a 'cold reading' done on them and their fortune told, for the entertainment value of the experience.

And, while the Tenth Amendment does permit a wide range of regulation, the consensus of public opinion seems to be that things should be prohibited only when they cause injury to the public under almost all circumstances, and regulated when they willl cause such injury in some but not all circumstances. (We license plumbers to ensure that the guy that charges you through the nose to fix your broken pipes actually knows what he is doing.)

To have someone claiming to be a fortune-teller holding her- or himself out as providing an entertainment, with atmosphere and alleged predictions about your future "a part of the act," is within the range of permissible behavior. To have them manipulating people by fraudulent claims to foretell the future, is not.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

Can someone explain the difference between me telling your future through palm-reading and me telling your future through Bible-reading?
There is no difference.
Can someone explain the difference between me going and spending ten bucks at the movies and me going and spending ten bucks at the fortune-teller? What if the movie is really bad, does that change things? Battlefield Earth? GLITTER?
Even a bad movie is still really a movie. It isn't claiming to be a Volkswagon or a trip to Hawaii.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

There has to be a certain level of competency required of people before what happens to them is fraud. If you buy a Mr. Clean Magic Eraser thinking you're getting something magical, you're not being defrauded. You're just stupid as shit.

It isn't a perfect and bright and shiny line. It's a combination of how plausible the claims are, how many people are believing it to their detriment, and what the tradition is of that particular product.

Six buildings in a row. Building 1 is a Catholic church. 2 is Rod Parsley's. 3 is Scientologists. 4 is a chiropractor. 5 is a fortune-teller. 6 is a faith healer.

Which ones are fraudulent?
The ones charging money for goods or services they cannot provide, or making false claims about goods and services they do provide.

[jsgoddess]

Even a bad movie is still really a movie. It isn't claiming to be a Volkswagon or a trip to Hawaii.

Granted I've never been to a fortune teller, but do fortune tellers claim to be a Volkswagen or a trip to Hawaii? I don't get the reference.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

Granted I've never been to a fortune teller, but do fortune tellers claim to be a Volkswagen or a trip to Hawaii? I don't get the reference.
They claim something just as ridiculous and false. They claim to be fortune tellers.

[Ravenman]

Can someone explain the difference between me telling your future through palm-reading and me telling your future through Bible-reading?Nobody charges you to read the Bible. In fact, they are often given away, like in hotel rooms.

Can someone explain the difference between me going and spending ten bucks at the movies and me going and spending ten bucks at the fortune-teller? There is a connection between fortune telling and fraud. Whether you think the link is sufficient to color the whole profession as a scam is up for debate, but I'm not aware of any common practices among cinema ticket takers to shake down the elderly for tens of thousands of dollars after they're done watching the matinee.

Just doing a little googling, it appears that the Supreme Court has already promulgated a test as to whether commercial speech can be restricted. The Central Hudson test is: 1) is the speech concerning a lawful activity and is not misleading? 2) is the governmental interest in restricting the speech substantial? 3) does the restriction directly advance the governmental interest asserted? 4) is the restriction more than necessary to serve the particular interest?

Now, I freely admit that I am biased. but a fortune telling business is a business based on misleading; the government ought to have an interest in prohibiting businesses that are so closely linked to fraud, even before the fraud takes place; the restriction to prohibit fortune telling businesses is narrowly targeted and effective. Unless someone can explain why my analysis of Central Hudson is wrong, it would seem to me that for-profit fortune tellers don't have much of a First Amendment case against Montgomery County.

[jsgoddess]

The ones charging money for goods or services they cannot provide, or making false claims about goods and services they do provide.

Which ones are those?

[Malthus]

I am uncomfortable prohibiting an activity commonly linked to fraud outright, merely because that activity is commonly linked to fraud. Whether or not "fortune telling" is a fraud depends on whether the "fortune teller" claims to be really telling the future, or merely providing a sideshow type attraction. Does the Montgomery prohibition prohibit the latter?

Many "carny" type activities are traditionally or commonly linked to frauds, but the proper response isn't to outlaw the county fair, but to regulate and crack down on the fraudsters.

[jsgoddess]

Since the point is being missed, the link between fortune-telling and going to the movies is that both are selling fiction, both could be taken as fact by idiots (see: Blair Witch Project, JFK), both are about the experience, and both involve really bad acting by people who are grossly overpaid.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

Which ones are those?
How should I know? I don't know what goods and services they all offer. It's about the details of whatever commercial enterprises they may be involved in, not about monolithic groups. Faith healing, for instance, while always bullshit, is not commercial fraud unless the subjects are being charged money to be fake healed. It depends on individual circumstances.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

Since the point is being missed, the link between fortune-telling and going to the movies is that both are selling fiction, both could be taken as fact by idiots (see: Blair Witch Project, JFK), both are about the experience, and both involve really bad acting by people who are grossly overpaid.
If a fortune teller admits up front that he or she can't really tell the future, and that all readings are creative, "fictional" performances, then there's no fraud. How many of them do that? If they're selling themselves as genuine, then they're lying.

The movies you mentioned did not claim to be documentaries. That's the difference. Psychic scammers claim to be real.

[jsgoddess]

So, movies that claim to be documentaries are different? What if it says it's a documentary but is a passel of lies? How about "based on a true story"? How about the ones that claim to be based on a novel but have little or nothing in common with the novel (My Friend Flicka! ARGH!)? Are those fraud?

I think most of us put things like fortune-telling smack into that same category as a movie or a magic show or reality TV where you have to spend money to text in your vote and your vote might be thrown out anyway.

People do stupid things for entertainment. My MIL spent all of her retirement money gambling on riverboats.

I've never been inside a fortune teller establishment. It wouldn't surprise me if they have signs up saying it's all for entertainment.

[Ravenman]

Many "carny" type activities are traditionally or commonly linked to frauds, but the proper response isn't to outlaw the county fair, but to regulate and crack down on the fraudsters.Nobody is proposing to outlaw the county fair. That would be an overly broad reaction to an interest in banning fortune telling, because the cotton candy merchant shouldn't be held to account for the shady business going on two doors down at Madame Zeldas.

I think most of us put things like fortune-telling smack into that same category as a movie or a magic show or reality TV where you have to spend money to text in your vote and your vote might be thrown out anyway. People do stupid things for entertainment. My MIL spent all of her retirement money gambling on riverboats.I don't believe Montgomery County or anyone else is particularly concerned about someone paying $5 or $20 on a lark to hear some mumbo-jumbo. The concern is more about the people who are routinely conned into paying hundreds or thousands of dollars for seances, cleansings, and all that other junk that these places peddle once they've found a mark.

And I don't wish to belittle the loss that your mother in law suffered, but one could argue that at least the games she played at the casino offered the chance for a payout, even though the house would have a clear 5% (or greater) advantage in every game. But it does not seem that the games she played were rigged in any way. In contrast, there is zero chance that fortune telling can offer any legitimate service, payout, or returned value that would be anything greater than either temporarily sating the gullibility or further allowing a victimization of the customer.

[begbert2]

What about the ones they classify as nonfiction?You mean, the ones where they accurately report the publisher's classification of it as being nonfiction?

From the link:

Granted, that's under "editorial reviews"--but if they're referring to non-in-house editors, I sure can't tell that from this page. Those claims appear to be claims made by Amazon about the book.

Call the FBI?Here are those five elements of fraud given earlier:
(1) a false statement of a material fact,
- I grant this, despite your failure to prove that the specific book doesn't work :p

(2) knowledge on the part of the defendant that the statement is untrue,
- Can you show that the reviewer didn't believe what they wrote to be accurate?

(3) intent on the part of the defendant to deceive the alleged victim,
- Can you show that the reviewer was intending to decieve, rather than just reporting the author's claims? Some of those editorial reviews read like they're copied straight from promotional materials.

(4) justifiable reliance by the alleged victim on the statement, and
- granted (some people are, what's the word? Oh yes, "chuckleheads".)

(5) injury to the alleged victim as a result.
- granted. (Small injury, the price of a book, but still it technically is one.)

So yeah, given points 2 and 3 I think you'd have a tough road to hoe, particularly if you wanted to attach to the big money pot of Amazon itself. (You can be quite certain that Amazon will tell you it had no intent to decieve, but was merely providing an impartial delivery system for books and reviews and the like.) But feel free to give it a shot if you like.

[jsgoddess]

I don't believe Montgomery County or anyone else is particularly concerned about someone paying $5 or $20 on a lark to hear some mumbo-jumbo. The concern is more about the people who are routinely conned into paying hundreds or thousands of dollars for seances, cleansings, and all that other junk that these places peddle once they've found a mark.

And I don't wish to belittle the loss that your mother in law suffered, but one could argue that at least the games she played at the casino offered the chance for a payout, even though the house would have a clear 5% (or greater) advantage in every game. But it does not seem that the games she played were rigged in any way. In contrast, there is zero chance that fortune telling can offer any legitimate service, payout, or returned value that would be anything greater than either temporarily sating the gullibility or further allowing a victimization of the customer.

You can belittle anything about my MIL you wish. Hers is just an example of someone spending money on foolishness.

The "legitimate service" a fortune-teller could offer is entertainment for those inclined. I mean, it sounds like a bore and a half to me, but I know the wife of one of my coworkers loves that stuff. She gets with her girlfriends and they do things like going to mediums. It sounds slightly more entertaining than church or a root canal, but only slightly.

For your other point, I don't think massages should be outlawed because some massages end in illegal activity. What things can lead to isn't a very strong case for me.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

So, movies that claim to be documentaries are different?

What if it says it's a documentary but is a passel of lies? How about "based on a true story"? How about the ones that claim to be based on a novel but have little or nothing in common with the novel (My Friend Flicka! ARGH!)? Are those fraud?

I think most of us put things like fortune-telling smack into that same category as a movie or a magic show or reality TV where you have to spend money to text in your vote and your vote might be thrown out anyway.

People do stupid things for entertainment. My MIL spent all of her retirement money gambling on riverboats.

I've never been inside a fortune teller establishment. It wouldn't surprise me if they have signs up saying it's all for entertainment.
If you make a false claim about your prodict, it's fraud. If you don't, it's not.

Remember that guy who wrote the phony memoir about being a drug addict? His publisher had to refund the money that people had spent on the book after the meoir was exposed as fraudulent. Do you think that was wrong? Do you think publishers should be allowed to say whatever they want is non-fiction?

[begbert2]

So, movies that claim to be documentaries are different? What if it says it's a documentary but is a passel of lies? How about "based on a true story"? How about the ones that claim to be based on a novel but have little or nothing in common with the novel (My Friend Flicka! ARGH!)? Are those fraud?

I think most of us put things like fortune-telling smack into that same category as a movie or a magic show or reality TV where you have to spend money to text in your vote and your vote might be thrown out anyway.

People do stupid things for entertainment. My MIL spent all of her retirement money gambling on riverboats.

I've never been inside a fortune teller establishment. It wouldn't surprise me if they have signs up saying it's all for entertainment.Part of determining if it's fraud is determining whether there was an intent to decieve -and a reasonable expectation that a person wouldn't fall for it.

"Based on a true story" doesn't imply that it's going to be accurate - quite the opposite, actually. If anything, the first two Harry Potter movies defied expectations by not slaughtering the source material. (The third, not so much.)

Similarly, documentaries/mockumentaries pretty much either are not expected to be believed, or are believed by their creators. In either case, they're not fraud. Remember - there's more to fraud than just not being true.

[jsgoddess]

Remember - there's more to fraud than just not being true.

That's exactly my point.

[begbert2]

That's exactly my point.Okay, you're trying to argue that fortune telling isn't fraud based on analogy. Why bother, when we can examine the issue based on what fraud acutally is?

Fortune tellers are committing fraud if they can't do it, don't believe they really can do it, are trying to fool people into thinking they can, believe that people will fall for it, and are 'harming' them based on it. It's pretty ludicrous to say that movies do this. And, it's pretty ludicrous to say that a kid who wraps a sheet around them at the school carnival does this. But is it ludicrous to say that somebody who opens up an actual business fortune telling is doing this?

In my opinion, the critical issues in specific cases is whether they believe they can do it, and whether the customers believe they can do it. If the answers are no and yes respectively, then they're defrauding their customers. And if the customer is paying more than twenty dollars or so for the 'service', it's a pretty safe bet they're actually falling for it, so we could say that any soothsayer that setas prices like that almost certainly qualifies as a fraud on all points other thier the soothsayer's own belief.

Of course, this is kind of a side note to whether you can make a law banning soothsayers. In my opinion, you obviously can make such a law - whatever the rationale, it's still a separate law from fraud. And businesses can indeed be regulated. So that's that for that, I'd say.

[Ravenman]

You can belittle anything about my MIL you wish. Hers is just an example of someone spending money on foolishness.Actually, I feel very sorry for her and her family. The loss of large sums of money on foolish things says more about addiction, depression, estrangement, or loneliness on behalf of the victim than it does about their silliness or stupidity.

While some would like to cast those who lose lots of money on gambling, lottery tickets, fortune tellers, televangelists, or whatever else nonsense is peddled, as being fools who deserve to lose their money, I view them more as people who either by compulsion or sadness needed to fill their lives with something that they could not get from the people around them.

For your other point, I don't think massages should be outlawed because some massages end in illegal activity. What things can lead to isn't a very strong case for me.A massage is an actual service. Fortune telling for $20 is a lie. Fortune telling for a $1,000 session is a huge lie.

Do you think that the places that offer palm readings do their business for only $20 at a time?

I have one other question. In the early days of the AIDS epidemic, many cities closed down bath houses because of the concern that the sex that took place there helped spread the disease. I recall that a number of gay rights groups protested that their freedom of assembly was being violated. Do you think they gay rights advocates had a point?

[jsgoddess]

Actually, I feel very sorry for her and her family. The loss of large sums of money on foolish things says more about addiction, depression, estrangement, or loneliness on behalf of the victim than it does about their silliness or stupidity.

I don't see why it can't be both.

[Left Hand of Dorkness]

You mean, the ones where they accurately report the publisher's classification of it as being nonfiction?

Here are those five elements of fraud given earlier:
(1) a false statement of a material fact,
- I grant this, despite your failure to prove that the specific book doesn't work :p

(2) knowledge on the part of the defendant that the statement is untrue,
- Can you show that the reviewer didn't believe what they wrote to be accurate?

(3) intent on the part of the defendant to deceive the alleged victim,
- Can you show that the reviewer was intending to decieve, rather than just reporting the author's claims? Some of those editorial reviews read like they're copied straight from promotional materials.

(4) justifiable reliance by the alleged victim on the statement, and
- granted (some people are, what's the word? Oh yes, "chuckleheads".)

(5) injury to the alleged victim as a result.
- granted. (Small injury, the price of a book, but still it technically is one.)

So yeah, given points 2 and 3 I think you'd have a tough road to hoe, particularly if you wanted to attach to the big money pot of Amazon itself. (You can be quite certain that Amazon will tell you it had no intent to decieve, but was merely providing an impartial delivery system for books and reviews and the like.) But feel free to give it a shot if you like.Totally fair--these are exactly the arguments I'd propose must be advanced against the author of a book. Or, for that matter, against a street-level fortune-teller.

I think you'd have a very hard time proving #2 and #3 for a lot of fortune-tellers. But not impossible: if, for example, you can show that they used trickery to gain information about clients, that'd go a very long way toward proving these two points.

Since many fortune-tellers/prophets are sincere in their beliefs, I think you cannot ban them under a blanket fraud argument. Absent that argument, I think the first amendment ought to prevent banning them across the board. Prosecute individual fortunetellers for fraud with my blessing--but banning them is probably unconstitutional.

[begbert2]

Totally fair--these are exactly the arguments I'd propose must be advanced against the author of a book. Or, for that matter, against a street-level fortune-teller.

I think you'd have a very hard time proving #2 and #3 for a lot of fortune-tellers. But not impossible: if, for example, you can show that they used trickery to gain information about clients, that'd go a very long way toward proving these two points.

Since many fortune-tellers/prophets are sincere in their beliefs, I think you cannot ban them under a blanket fraud argument. Absent that argument, I think the first amendment ought to prevent banning them across the board. Prosecute individual fortunetellers for fraud with my blessing--but banning them is probably unconstitutional.I agree that you can't convict whole classes of people for fraud this way, with the possible exception of telephone spammers ;). However, I'm not convinced that constitutional protection extends to the right to make a buck. We regularly regulate businesses and force people to print various warnings and information and the like on products - this seems exactly like a limitation on their speech to me. Given that we do that without the constitution exploding into flames, I'm not sure we can't do the same thing to any given slab of the prediction industry. Saying all prediction for cash is illegal might be dubious just due to the fact that that wide of a brush can be used to paint any business that precalculates depreciation, but I can certainly see defining certain practices (tarot cards, palm reading, cold reading, throwing darts at stock listings) as being 'not to code' as prediction methodologies go, and banning their use by businesses.

[Left Hand of Dorkness]

I agree that you can't convict whole classes of people for fraud this way, with the possible exception of telephone spammers ;). However, I'm not convinced that constitutional protection extends to the right to make a buck. We regularly regulate businesses and force people to print various warnings and information and the like on products - this seems exactly like a limitation on their speech to me. Given that we do that without the constitution exploding into flames, I'm not sure we can't do the same thing to any given slab of the prediction industry. Saying all prediction for cash is illegal might be dubious just due to the fact that that wide of a brush can be used to paint any business that precalculates depreciation, but I can certainly see defining certain practices (tarot cards, palm reading, cold reading, throwing darts at stock listings) as being 'not to code' as prediction methodologies go, and banning their use by businesses.
I really don't think so, given that so many forms have religious underpinnings. Do we want a world where someone can perform Bibliomancy to predict your future but not palm reading, where casting i Ching is okay but Tarot cards aren't? How do we set up a fair test to distinguish between religious and non-religious fortune-telling?

Rather, let's set up a test between rationalist and nonrationalist claims. If someone claims they've invented a mathematical algorithm that can predict stocks successfully, they can be regulated. If they claim they can read stock predictions in their Tarot cards, have at it.

[begbert2]

I really don't think so, given that so many forms have religious underpinnings. Do we want a world where someone can perform Bibliomancy to predict your future but not palm reading, where casting i Ching is okay but Tarot cards aren't? How do we set up a fair test to distinguish between religious and non-religious fortune-telling?
I'm going to have to back away from this one, becuase I don't know the law for sure, and if I did I suspect I wouldn't like it.

(I think that an organization that takes money for a service is a business, period - I believe that any effort to call such a religion is inherently a scam and should be denied that protection. So, in my ideal world, Bibliomancy, palm reading, casting I Ching, and Tarot would all be illegal when done for money - and legal when done for free. And yes, I know that donations and "donations" would make this very messy.)

Rather, let's set up a test between rationalist and nonrationalist claims. If someone claims they've invented a mathematical algorithm that can predict stocks successfully, they can be regulated. If they claim they can read stock predictions in their Tarot cards, have at it.So: if the rational claim is found to work, it is permitted. If it is found not to work, then it is banned - except if they continue to claim that it works. Stating that something that doesn't work works is what makes non-rationalist claims non-rational, after all. So, everything is permitted, if the person insists that it works.

I'm not seeing that system as being all that useful.

[Mr. Moto]

I think that an organization that takes money for a service is a business, period - I believe that any effort to call such a religion is inherently a scam and should be denied that protection.

Again, what about the Catholic bookstore in my neighborhood? They sell Bibles, Catechisms, rosaries, medals of various kinds, and other things.

They are a business, sure - but nobody would assume they gave up First Amendment protections by becoming one. If I were to ask the proprietors about the Rosary, they would be within their rights to discuss that with me - and nobody here would really dispute this.

I have stated that I am skeptical of palmreading and the like - but I am even more skeptical of government deciding on what appears to be purely arbitrary (and unconstitutional) criteria what businesses can set up shop.

[begbert2]

Again, what about the Catholic bookstore in my neighborhood? They sell Bibles, Catechisms, rosaries, medals of various kinds, and other things.

They are a business, sure - but nobody would assume they gave up First Amendment protections by becoming one. If I were to ask the proprietors about the Rosary, they would be within their rights to discuss that with me - and nobody here would really dispute this.

I have stated that I am skeptical of palmreading and the like - but I am even more skeptical of government deciding on what appears to be purely arbitrary (and unconstitutional) criteria what businesses can set up shop.I *strongly* suspect that the catholic bookstore is set up as and viewed by the government as a business entity and not a religious edifice - though I suppose I could be wrong. Do they have to pay taxes on their building?

Remember, just selling religious paraphenalia doesn't make you a religion, and just being a business doesn't prevent your salespeople from chatting (for free!) about rosaries or God or the stock market or the red socks with customers. Where things get dicey is when the things the business is actually selling are not verifiably what the business is claiming they are - which I seriously doubt is the case regarding your bookstore. That bible is really a bible. That rosary is really a rosary. All good - if you're into that sort of thing, anyway.

[E-Sabbath]

So, here's the final question. Is there any right to operate a business of a specific type in a city? Can a city ban pornography stores? If so, can they ban fortunetelling?

[jsgoddess]

Okay, you're trying to argue that fortune telling isn't fraud based on analogy. Why bother, when we can examine the issue based on what fraud acutally is?

No, I'm saying that it could easily be fraud if a whole host of other things are as well. It's not an argument based on analogy. It's an argument based on comparison to unthreatened businesses. What makes fortune telling unique, and uniquely dangerous to the community?

How many people are paying mega bucks to fortune tellers? I don't have the slightest clue about that. Does anyone have some data?

[Diogenes the Cynic]

No, I'm saying that it could easily be fraud if a whole host of other things are as well.
But you're doing that based on false analogies.

[jsgoddess]

But you're doing that based on false analogies.

Yes, yes, because you say so. You'll forgive me if I don't find your saying so all that compelling.

[begbert2]

No, I'm saying that it could easily be fraud if a whole host of other things are as well. It's not an argument based on analogy. It's an argument based on comparison to unthreatened businesses. What makes fortune telling unique, and uniquely dangerous to the community?Presumably somebody decided it was a problem, and was persuasive enough or had enough friends to make it a law. Doubtlessly their reasons for seeing it as unique would differ from yours - should I start speculating on what they were? Would that help?

I mean, it's not to hard to imagine what the motivations might have been - perhaps they had a gypsy problem and wanted a big hammer to swat it with. Perhaps somebody had a friend or family member that got scammed to heck and went on a crusade as a result. Perhaps some local religious leader decided to stamp out the competition.

All of these are guesses, and like all other possible motivations they're ones that wouldn't be convincing to everyone, which is why fortune telling isn't banned everywhere. But, are they what you're looking for here? I'm not entirely certain what you want.

[jsgoddess]

All of these are guesses, and like all other possible motivations they're ones that wouldn't be convincing to everyone, which is why fortune telling isn't banned everywhere. But, are they what you're looking for here? I'm not entirely certain what you want.

What I wanted was to give my reasons for finding a ban on fortune-telling silly. I gave those. That's kinda what the forum is for, you know, talking about things we aren't likely to agree on--else it would be called "Great Agreements."

[begbert2]

What I wanted was to give my reasons for finding a ban on fortune-telling silly. I gave those. That's kinda what the forum is for, you know, talking about things we aren't likely to agree on--else it would be called "Great Agreements."Fair enough - you think it's silly. I think that banning fortune tellers is excessive and probably not a good idea, but not irrational. Others might think that it's well-justified. Not Great Agreements - but rather Great Opinions, then. Unless you hoped to demonstrate debatewise that it really is, objectively, silly? If so, I can confidently say that making dubious analogies to movies isn't working, because the critical issue - whether the 'seller knows its fake/buyer thinks its real/seller takes advantage of buyer' case is something likely to occur, doesn't seem to be even vaguely comparable between the two cases of documentaries and supposed psychics. Which is why DtC is not alone in criticizing your analogy.

[ZPG Zealot]

If anyone is interested, I have started an ask the fortune teller thread in My Humble Opinions for the curious.

[Left Hand of Dorkness]

Where things get dicey is when the things the business is actually selling are not verifiably what the business is claiming they are - which I seriously doubt is the case regarding your bookstore. That bible is really a bible. That rosary is really a rosary. All good - if you're into that sort of thing, anyway.
So what if a Catholic store sells the Bible, claiming it is a holy book? Bannable?

[jsgoddess]

Fair enough - you think it's silly. I think that banning fortune tellers is excessive and probably not a good idea, but not irrational. Others might think that it's well-justified. Not Great Agreements - but rather Great Opinions, then. Unless you hoped to demonstrate debatewise that it really is, objectively, silly? If so, I can confidently say that making dubious analogies to movies isn't working, because the critical issue - whether the 'seller knows its fake/buyer thinks its real/seller takes advantage of buyer' case is something likely to occur, doesn't seem to be even vaguely comparable between the two cases of documentaries and supposed psychics. Which is why DtC is not alone in criticizing your analogy.

I don't think most buyers of fortune telling think it's real. If you have stats or cites or something, whip 'em out.

[begbert2]

So what if a Catholic store sells the Bible, claiming it is a holy book? Bannable?Define "holy book". :D (As a classification, the bible is definitely the holy book of the Christian religion - whether or not it's true.)

If you like, I'll tell you right now that if somebody sells you a bible promising that it will cure your boils and warts, and you can show it doesn't, and you can show they knew they were lying (good luck with that), then sure. Take them to court. But I don't believe that that is the norm for mainline religious supply stores. I think most of them just stick the bible on the shelf and let you pick it up, or at *worst* sell you some book whose author or publisher provided bunko promotional materials for, which is their fault and not the store's.

I think I've forgotten the larger point you were trying to make, here. Becuase if you're trying to draw an equivalence between bible shops and fortunetellers, then I think it's working about as well as the analogy between documentaries and fortunetellers - which is to say, it's not working at all. To the degree that there is merit in banning fortunetelling, it's based in the theory that fortunetellers are scammers who are preying on the public. That line of reasoning cannot possibly be applied to bookstores or documentaries as a class. (Religions themselves, on the other hand...but they have that pesky amendment buttressing them. ;))

I don't think most buyers of fortune telling think it's real. If you have stats or cites or something, whip 'em out.I think that many buyers of fortune telling think it's real, and that most of the money collected for fortune telling is from buyers who think it's real. If you have stats or cites or something, whip 'em out. 'Cause I don't - though I think it's obviously the case that nobody make a living telling five dollar fortunes to skeptics and recreational imbibers.

Ah, Great Opinions. It's a wonderful forum.

[Left Hand of Dorkness]

14% of people believe in fortune-telling (http://www.csicop.org/articles/poll/). I'd wager good money that that group is overrepresented among customers of fortune-tellers, AND among fortune-tellers themselves.

Remember that there are five criteria for fraud:
(1) a false statement of a material fact,
(2) knowledge on the part of the defendant that the statement is untrue,
(3) intent on the part of the defendant to deceive the alleged victim,
(4) justifiable reliance by the alleged victim on the statement, and
(5) injury to the alleged victim as a result.

If the purchaser of a service believes it's real, I think #4 is met. But, and this is crucial, that's only because I think #2 and #3 are so hard to meet.

If nobody believes fortune-telling is true, then a victim's reliance on the fortuneteller's statement isn't justifiable. If some folks believe it's true, then the fortune-teller himself may be a believer, also.

As I understand it, there are several categories of speech that may be limited in the US, including fraud, obscenity, threats, incitement to commit crimes, slander, etc. I think you'd run into serious trouble trying to limit the sale of some sorts of fortune-telling (e.g., a Tarot reading) but not others (e.g., the book of Revelations).

[jsgoddess]

I think that many buyers of fortune telling think it's real, and that most of the money collected for fortune telling is from buyers who think it's real. If you have stats or cites or something, whip 'em out. 'Cause I don't - though I think it's obviously the case that nobody make a living telling five dollar fortunes to skeptics and recreational imbibers.

So, if a handful of believers spend a ton of money but a whole bunch of non-believers spend only a little, is that fraud?

I asked for data because you're the one saying it's different than entertainment.

[Gary "Wombat" Robson]

If the purchaser of a service believes it's real, I think #4 is met. But, and this is crucial, that's only because I think #2 and #3 are so hard to meet.

If nobody believes fortune-telling is true, then a victim's reliance on the fortuneteller's statement isn't justifiable. If some folks believe it's true, then the fortune-teller himself may be a believer, also.I really really don't understand this. How can fortune-tellers possibly believe in what they're doing when they have to make stuff up to tell a fortune?

[Left Hand of Dorkness]

Define "holy book". :D (As a classification, the bible is definitely the holy book of the Christian religion - whether or not it's true.)

If you like, I'll tell you right now that if somebody sells you a bible promising that it will cure your boils and warts, and you can show it doesn't, and you can show they knew they were lying (good luck with that), then sure. Take them to court. But I don't believe that that is the norm for mainline religious supply stores. I think most of them just stick the bible on the shelf and let you pick it up, or at *worst* sell you some book whose author or publisher provided bunko promotional materials for, which is their fault and not the store's.
No: holy as in sacred, as in the book is the word of God, as in it contains the true story of Jesus's resurrection, and it tells us what will happen when Jesus returns. If they sell it to you and claim it's true, they're claiming that you can purchase a supernaturally-created prediction of the future.
I think I've forgotten the larger point you were trying to make, here. Becuase if you're trying to draw an equivalence between bible shops and fortunetellers, then I think it's working about as well as the analogy between documentaries and fortunetellers - which is to say, it's not working at all. To the degree that there is merit in banning fortunetelling, it's based in the theory that fortunetellers are scammers who are preying on the public. That line of reasoning cannot possibly be applied to bookstores or documentaries as a class. (Religions themselves, on the other hand...but they have that pesky amendment buttressing them. I'm not drawing an equivalence, unless you mean I'm saying that the same principle that applies to sincere fortune-tellers ought to apply to sincere booksellers, that is, booksellers who make and believe claims that certain supernaturally-sourced predictions of the future are genuine.

If you agree that blanket restrictions on fortune-tellers are illegal, we're not arguing. But it appears to me that you don't think such blanket restrictions are okay.

[jsgoddess]

14% of people believe in fortune-telling (http://www.csicop.org/articles/poll/).

To me, that makes it really hard for someone to claim they are being defrauded by fortune telling. It's a fringe product, not something the average schmoe off the street would think is real. CSI has more believers.

[Left Hand of Dorkness]

I really really don't understand this. How can fortune-tellers possibly believe in what they're doing when they have to make stuff up to tell a fortune?
Seriously? When I was a teenager, I read Tarot cards for my friends (for free), and was impressed with my accuracy, and freaked some of them out with my accuracy. I had no understanding of the principles of cold reading at the time: I just used what I'd learned from the little pamphlet that came with my book of cards, and when card X came up I told someone that he was battling against internal strife in his family, and he was astonished at my perception: he hadn't told anyone about how his mom and dad had been fighting!

You don't have to understand how cold reading works for it to go into effect.

Is your theory that throughout history, all astrologers have known what they were doing was bullshit? Everyone who cast the I Ching knew it was nonsense?

[Gary "Wombat" Robson]

Is your theory that throughout history, all astrologers have known what they were doing was bullshit? Everyone who cast the I Ching knew it was nonsense?Good point. I'd been thinking more about the crystal ball and seance types--they require active fraud to get anything at all.

I started a thread asking exactly this question about astrologers some time ago. After wading through far too many posts and arguments, I came to the following conclusions:

1) The people who develop techniques for astrology are frauds. This includes pretty much all people who write astrology columns that make claims by sign (e.g., every single Gemini on the planet is going to travel this month).

2) Some of the people who use those techniques actually do believe in what they're doing.

It is entirely possible that someone could read a book about astrology or i ching or reading rat entrails and convince themselves that it works and they can do it.

[jtgain]

IIRC, just because you call what you are doing a religion, doesn't make it so. What if I wanted to sell marijuana in Montgomery County based on some religious belief that I have claiming that smoking marijuana makes you closer to God?

Isn't there some sort of standard that is allowed which a community can say, "Yes, this is a religion, but that is not".

[Anne Neville]

Here's a possible benefit to society from fortune-tellers that I hadn't thought of until now. In ZPGZealot's Ask the Fortune Teller thread (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=528597), I asked what she does if someone comes to her looking for psychic help in committing a crime or concealing one from the authorities. She said that happens a lot (mentioned that in particular, people who skip bail often consult fortune-tellers), and she often contacts the police in those cases. She said that psychics often help police solve crimes in this way.

Assume the presence of fortune-tellers cuts down on unsolved crime in some measurable way. Would that change anybody's opinion about whether fortune-telling should be legal or not?

[begbert2]

So, if a handful of believers spend a ton of money but a whole bunch of non-believers spend only a little, is that fraud?

I asked for data because you're the one saying it's different than entertainment.By my personal little definition, it's fraudulent, but you don't have a case for fraud if you don't fall for it. Call it 'attempted fraud', if you like.

And of course, this only can possibly apply if the person selling the product knows it's crap and is hoping to convince you it's not. Which IS different from entertainment, regardless of your attempt to form an analogy where none can be made. (At least, no non-false analogy, anyway.)

No: holy as in sacred, as in the book is the word of God, as in it contains the true story of Jesus's resurrection, and it tells us what will happen when Jesus returns. If they sell it to you and claim it's true, they're claiming that you can purchase a supernaturally-created prediction of the future.It ain't fraud unless the seller doesn't believe it.

I'm not drawing an equivalence, unless you mean I'm saying that the same principle that applies to sincere fortune-tellers ought to apply to sincere booksellers, that is, booksellers who make and believe claims that certain supernaturally-sourced predictions of the future are genuine.

If you agree that blanket restrictions on fortune-tellers are illegal, we're not arguing. But it appears to me that you don't think such blanket restrictions are okay.
There are four possible categories of booksellers.
1) Ones who don't believe in the factuality of the book, and don't try to sell it to you based on that claimed factuality.

2) Ones who don't believe in the factuality of the book, and do try to sell it to you based on that claimed factuality.

3) Ones who do believe in the factuality of the book, and don't try to sell it to you based on that claimed factuality.

4) Ones who do believe in the factuality of the book, and do try to sell it to you based on that claimed factuality.

Only the ones in category 2 can possibly be committing fraud, yes? And also, to commit fraud, they have to do more than just let you read the add copy the publisher put on the book - they have to lie to you themselves.

I think this is so rare as to be negligible - mostly because I don't think most booksellers do much more to sell the book than put it on the shelf and maybe put up a sign given them by the publisher to attract attention to it. And also, I am quite sure that the few cases where the seller actively sells you the book based on its factuality are in the majority of cases done by people who actually believe what they're saying, making the thus-reduced set of fraudlent sellers virtually nonexistent.

So it's not so much that I think that booksellers and fortuntellers aren't equivalent - I think that they're completely incomparable. Merely mentioning them in this thread strikes me as an attempt to cast them as being more equivalent than they are, because frankly their real level of equivalence doesn't merit their mention.

Now, if you were targeting book writers, that might not be the case, but booksellers have an extra layer of separation from the work that makes them as a class* completely incomparable, in my opinion.



* Feel free to point out the exception that proves the rule. I won't be much impressed, since the only way it could relate to this discussion is if the problem is prevalent enough to merit at least considering banning the lot of them.

IIRC, just because you call what you are doing a religion, doesn't make it so. What if I wanted to sell marijuana in Montgomery County based on some religious belief that I have claiming that smoking marijuana makes you closer to God?

Isn't there some sort of standard that is allowed which a community can say, "Yes, this is a religion, but that is not".Well, I've said I have my standard - of course, if I think that a religion tells you should pay tithing, it's automatically quite dubious on the face of it. However others would disagree, probably including the US government. So far as I know there is no official standard for what defines a religion in the states, other than whether you self-identify as such.

Here's a possible benefit to society from fortune-tellers that I hadn't thought of until now. In ZPGZealot's Ask the Fortune Teller thread (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=528597), I asked what she does if someone comes to her looking for psychic help in committing a crime or concealing one from the authorities. She said that happens a lot (mentioned that in particular, people who skip bail often consult fortune-tellers), and she often contacts the police in those cases. She said that psychics often help police solve crimes in this way.

Assume the presence of fortune-tellers cuts down on unsolved crime in some measurable way. Would that change anybody's opinion about whether fortune-telling should be legal or not?Well, as noted, the question of whether it should be legal or not is based less on fraud law and more on whether you have a personal problem with fortunetelling specifically. So, such people would probably only have their opinion changed by this if they didn't have that big a problem with fortuntelling to start with.

For myself, I'm fine with it being illegal, and I'm fine with it being legal - and I recognize that making it illegal is not mandatory or even strongly suggested by other laws. (Of course, neither is the law telling you not to run stoplights. That it's not implied by other laws is not a reason not to make undesired behavior illegal.) So, this unsolved crime thing might sway me a little - but I currently would be quite surprised to learn that foretunetelling was making that big a difference in crime overall, so at the moment it doesn't sway me to any discernable degree.

[Jackmannii]

Assume the presence of fortune-tellers cuts down on unsolved crime in some measurable way. Would that change anybody's opinion about whether fortune-telling should be legal or not?I wouldn't make the assumption without better evidence than that soothsayer's say-so, and I'd also want evidence that such alleged crime-fighting overshadows the financial exploitation and outright fraud that accompanies the "profession" of fortune-telling.

By the way, references to a municipality "banning" fortune-telling sound about as illogical to me as claims that prayer is "banned" in schools. No one cares if you read palms or a crystal ball at a party. The question is whether you should be allowed to charge fees for the "service".

I will lose no sleep whatsoever if poor Mr. Plaintiff gets stiffed by the courts and has to turn to some other means of supporting himself. Maybe a nice home improvement business? :dubious:

[ZPG Zealot]

I will lose no sleep whatsoever if poor Mr. Plaintiff gets stiffed by the courts and has to turn to some other means of supporting himself. Maybe a nice home improvement business? :dubious:

Yeah, that's really going cut down on Roma crime in the area. I hope you are being sarcastic. Even fortunetellers who regularly defraud clients are cheating people that go out of their way to volunteer for it. Home improvement scams do considerably more financial and environmental damage to a community.

[Left Hand of Dorkness]

IIRC, just because you call what you are doing a religion, doesn't make it so. What if I wanted to sell marijuana in Montgomery County based on some religious belief that I have claiming that smoking marijuana makes you closer to God?
No. Rather, IIRC, the government can restrict practices immaterial of whether they're religious practices, I believe; if they appear to be targeting a specifically religious practice, there must be compelling government interest in such targeting. There was a test case a decade or so ago involving Santeria animal sacrifices, and a township that outlawed animal slaughter as a way to stop the sacrifices. The Santeria practitioners won (http://userwww.sfsu.edu/~biella/santeria/dec3.html).

This may apply to such a case, but I'm not sure how.

[Left Hand of Dorkness]

This is the ACLU's (http://www.aclu-md.org/aPress/Press2009/070909_Fortuneteller.html) press release explaining why they've taken the case. Material to the SC court above is this passage:
n defending the law in the Circuit Court, the County argued that it is a legitimate exercise of police power, aimed at preventing fraud. While the interest in preventing fraud is legitimate, the County already has a law accomplishing that goal. A separate provision of the County Code prohibits persons from intending to or engaging in fraud in any consumer transaction. Accordingly, the ban’s only effect is to prevent individuals from engaging in constitutionally protected activity.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

The more I think about it, the more I'm starting to come around to the conclusion that, while the "psychic" industry is 100% fraud and hokum, legislating against it is pretty messy for any number of reasons. It's probably defensible on First Amendment grounds. These scammers are probably better fought with information and exposure.

[Ravenman]

In the last day or two, I've found a number of court cases that clearly side with the fortune teller. I, too, have come to the conclusion that the law is on his side.

But as far as the "...I will defend to my death his right to say it," fuck that. I hope his nefarious business fails and he suffers tenfold the wrong he does to "customers."