County in MD bans fortune telling for profit

[Patty O'Furniture]

Looks like the law has been on the books since the early 50's, I just heard about it because somebody is (of course) suing to overturn the ban on free speech grounds.

WASHINGTON (Map, News) - A fortuneteller is suing Montgomery County after he learned he would not be allowed to open a shop in Bethesda because the county bans the business of forecasting the future.

Attorneys for Nick Nefedro, previously of Key West, Fla., say county officials violated his First Amendment rights to free speech and discriminated against his “Roma,” or Gypsy, culture when they refused to give him a business license. Montgomery code dating back to the early 1950s prohibits collecting cash for predicting the future.

“The underlying purpose is to prevent people from being taken advantage of, because it’s a scam,” Clifford Royalty, a lawyer in the Montgomery County State’s Attorney’s Office, said.

If we can legislate scam laws against fortune telling, why not against astrology and homeopathy as well? Do you think the fortune teller has a case?

Of course, the plaintiff must already know how it's going to turn out.

According to the linked story:

[A] 1976 Supreme Court decision, albeit not in a fortunetelling case, that said “untruthful speech” is not protected.

Is a told fortune untruthful if both parties believe it to be true? I think if he somehow wins the case, his clients should be able to sue him when his predictions turn out to be a bunch of hokum.

[LilShieste]

On one hand, I really hate stuff like this that deliberately takes advantage of people gullible enough to fall for it.

On the other, how far should it go? What if some people do it for fun, and don't take it seriously? What about horoscopes in magazines, etc.?

I'm interested in seeing the responses to this thread. Maybe it will help me in making up my mind.

[LilShieste]

Actually, the more I think about it, I think I've pretty much made up my mind.

Services such as this (e.g., fortune telling) should be advertised/acknowledged as entertainment, and nothing more. If the fortune teller leads the customer to believe they can actually perform the services advertised (and can't), then I think the fortune teller should be susceptible to fraud charges.

(I wonder if this is how it already works in certain locations. I remember those commercials with "Miss Cleo" always contained fine print at the bottom of the screen that said something like, "For entertainment purposes only.")

[begbert2]

Hmm, is Christainity legal in that county?

[Paul in Qatar]

Before we go off on an anti-religious screed (not that we have yet), does any brand-name religion practice small-scale personalized fortune-telling?

[begbert2]

Originally Posted by Paul in Saudi

Before we go off on an anti-religious screed (not that we have yet), does any brand-name religion practice small-scale personalized fortune-telling?

Anti-religious screed? Me?

Christanity doesn't so far as I know. Could somebody reasonably make the claim that this "“Roma,” or Gypsy, culture" includes religious elements and therefore couldn't be discriminated against on those grounds? (Asking 'cause I don't know about religion amongst gypsies.)

[clairobscur]

Originally Posted by Patty O'Furniture

If we can legislate scam laws against fortune telling, why not against astrology and homeopathy as well?

Seems like a good idea to me....

[prleone]

Finally! Logic prevails. That's just step one.
Those who feel cheated in MD can now follow themselves
instead of Madam Tarot. Can horoscope go out next, please?

Step two should be outlawing collection plates
at churches. One should never feel that spiritual
advice equals money.

[Blaster Master]

FOA, thanks begbert2 for your insightful comments.

Quite frankly, I'd like to see a law like that overturned. You know what, even if you don't believe in fortune telling, palm reading, or whatever, and you think it's all cold reading, it's still entertaining. But there are people who believe they're getting their fortunes told just as much as some of the fortune tellers really believe they're telling a fortune. Sure, maybe they're delusional or intuitively using some cold reading techniques... whatever. Still, is it really THAT bad that people need to be protected from it by the government? I see plenty of these places where I live, which isn't too far from Bethesda, where they sell Palm Readings for $5 - $10; even the expensive ones are only $40 or so. They're not being coerced into it, they walk into the business themselves. So, fine, require them to refer to it as "entertainment", but banning it is just silly.

[clairobscur]

Originally Posted by Blaster Master

Still, is it really THAT bad that people need to be protected from it by the government?

I call offering a service you can't deliver either scam or false advertising. If I really, really believed I had invented the perpetual motion machine and was selling it at a profit, wouldn't you mind?

Now, I would be equally happy if, instead of banning it altogether, I could sue fortune-tellers and astrologers when they fail to correctly predict my future (I believe it has already been tried over here, but the court dismissed the case, if I'm not mistaken).

[begbert2]

Originally Posted by Blaster Master

FOA, thanks begbert2 for your insightful comments.

Quite frankly, I'd like to see a law like that overturned. You know what, even if you don't believe in fortune telling, palm reading, or whatever, and you think it's all cold reading, it's still entertaining. But there are people who believe they're getting their fortunes told just as much as some of the fortune tellers really believe they're telling a fortune. Sure, maybe they're delusional or intuitively using some cold reading techniques... whatever. Still, is it really THAT bad that people need to be protected from it by the government? I see plenty of these places where I live, which isn't too far from Bethesda, where they sell Palm Readings for $5 - $10; even the expensive ones are only $40 or so. They're not being coerced into it, they walk into the business themselves. So, fine, require them to refer to it as "entertainment", but banning it is just silly.

Gee, thanks for the props. (And I'm serious about wondering if a person could raise the shield of religion to defend carnival fortune telling, by the way.)

And I've heard that this sort of thing can be pretty addictive if you don't think it's fake, so that while $40 isn't all that much, it might add up a little at once a week for ad infinitum.

Even so though, I oppose banning this sort of thing on general princible. If politicians are still allowed to scam their voters with flimsy promises and outright lies, then everybody else should be allowed to scam each other in their private business too.

[clairobscur]

Originally Posted by clairobscur

Now, I would be equally happy if, instead of banning it altogether, I could sue fortune-tellers and astrologers when they fail to correctly predict my future (I believe it has already been tried over here, but the court dismissed the case, if I'm not mistaken).

When I think about it, it's not really satisfying, because it leaves off the hook scammers who prey on desperate people by offering them such thing as a communication with their beloved departed. I wouldn't have any issue, though, if they were simply obligated to tell that they can't really speak with the dead, and that the communication with their late daughter is only "for entertainment". Preferably on live TV.

[Kyrie Eleison]

Originally Posted by Paul in Saudi

Before we go off on an anti-religious screed (not that we have yet), does any brand-name religion practice small-scale personalized fortune-telling?

It's not uncommon in Pentecostal churches for people to receive personal, supposedly supernatural messages from others regarding the future. If you need a brand name, the Assemblies of God is probably the best known Pentecostal denomination. Of course, in this context, it's "prophecy" not "fortune-telling," it is not usually a service that's offered upon demand, and there's no fee.

[begbert2]

Originally Posted by Paul in Saudi

Before we go off on an anti-religious screed (not that we have yet), does any brand-name religion practice small-scale personalized fortune-telling?

Actually, now that I think of it, Mormons have something called a "patriarchal blessing" which would probably qualify as small-scale personalized fortune-telling. Are there any mormons in Montgomery County, do you suppose?

[Jurph]

Originally Posted by begbert2

Actually, now that I think of it, Mormons have something called a "patriarchal blessing" which would probably qualify as small-scale personalized fortune-telling. Are there any mormons in Montgomery County, do you suppose?

There may be one or two who worship at this building, but it's only 160,000 square feet, so... no, probably only a few.

[prleone]

Originally Posted by clairobscur

When I think about it, it's not really satisfying, because it leaves off the hook scammers who prey on desperate people by offering them such thing as a communication with their beloved departed. I wouldn't have any issue, though, if they were simply obligated to tell that they can't really speak with the dead, and that the communication with their late daughter is only "for entertainment". Preferably on live TV.

Well put, Clairob!

Speaking of TV, anyone remember when Karla
on Cheers found out she's been scammed for years
and she found out when her seer retired and TOLD HER
none of it's true?

[Patty O'Furniture]

Originally Posted by begbert2

Actually, now that I think of it, Mormons have something called a "patriarchal blessing" which would probably qualify as small-scale personalized fortune-telling. Are there any mormons in Montgomery County, do you suppose?

This might only be a problem if they were charging a fee for the reading. And as we all know, religions aren't in business for the money.

[begbert2]

Originally Posted by Patty O'Furniture

This might only be a problem if they were charging a fee for the reading. And as we all know, religions aren't in business for the money.

Well in this particular instance it's potentially interesting because it might be (locally) illegal, maybe, thus paving the way for a constitutional challenge to the law from another front.

(Whoops - reread the OP - no cash exchanged, thus not illegal. I now retreat...)