Is there a free speech right to sell tarot card readings?

Great Debates
21

Russia has been issuing licences to psychics for many years. The psychics work in hospitals along with the doctors. England has a system of validating psychics also.

In this country, Reika is/was being used in hospitals in Boston. It was done by nurses and proved helpful to patients.

In reading the material posted here, I wonder why no one knows about these things?

For the most part, fortune telling was out-lawed years ago by the fundamental religionists, and many states have laws against it as a legacy of the past. Psychic fairs and events are usually stated for “entertainment purposes only” in order to comply with the laws.

It is true fortune telling can take many forms, but psychics are not fortune tellers.

The same self-righteousness held by the fundamentals is reflected by the skeptics. Neither have any real knowledge of what they speak.

There is no such thing as the “supernatural”. All things are natural occurances, even those we can’t really understand.

The ACLU is correct in defeating this stupid law, and others like it. If the religious fanatics and the skeptical fanatics could prove their assumptions, and we had a very large thread on this where they couldn’t, then we could arrest psychics and put them in jail, like we do con men. So you see, we don’t need laws like this, we need evidence, proof, etc.

Would you by law, ban all lawyers, because some of them are crooks.

If you believe some one is a fraud, or crook, fine, then prove it and get that person off the streets. These laws aimed at the psychics now, are just an expression of bigotry.

Love
Leroy

22

If we’re going to do a First Amendment analysis, as Hamlet’s post suggests, step 1 is to categorize what kind of speech we’re talking about. To the extent that we’re talking about folks who are selling their fortunetelling services, that puts it in the category of commercial speech.*

Although the courts have expanded the levels of constitutional protection afforded to commercial speech in the last two decades, the fact remains that commercial speech is subject to considerably more regulation than noncommercial speech. The courts tend to strike down regulations that are not shown to protect the public (such as restrictions on price advertising, where the public benefits by knowing how much goods and services cost), while upholding restrictions that do protect the public (such as bans on confusing trade names and misleading advertising). But even if a particular kind of noncommercial speech is subject to regulation, the regulation must be no broader than necessary to achieve the regulatory purpose.

All in all, commercial speech is a bit of a crapshoot. There’s a pretty good argument to be made that these sorts of fortunetellers are just leeches and scam artists whose commercial activities can and should be regulated. In fact, I’d love to argue such a case. But it’s no slam dunk.

*Religious faith healers and their ilk are could also be argued to be engaging in commercial speech to the extent they’re collecting money from their flocks, but the religious aspect of their services invokes the protection of the 1st Amendment’s free exercise of religion clause. The fortunetelling scam artists frequently invoke pseudo-religious mumbo jumbo in their line of work, but I doubt anybody would succeed with a claim that selling tarot readings and such is an exercise of religion protected by the 1st Am.

23

I’ve read everyone’s messages, and tried to understand everyone’s point of view, but one thing I’ve noticed…
Noone has raised the point that what people are REALLY paying for in a tarot reading is the reader’s time, experience and understanding of the cards that make up each deck. This falls into the same category as paying a consultant on a T.V. show, or for a writer to pay someone to help them get facts straight on a book. Efficiency consultants? Just how do they “know” that their way is most efficient? Practice, experience and time spent reviewing the results of experimentation. Same as reading tarot.
I know that some of you will say that this is silly, because you don’t believe that tarot-reading is real, and that all of it is simply hokum, but that is where the people who read the cards, and those who visit readers differ from the rest of society. They believe that the readings can have meaning.
And belief is the first step toward making a thing real.
How many Christians will tell you that they believe in God, even though they most likely have never seen “him” or heard his voice speaking? Belief carries them to places that they would never think to reach for on their own.
Sure, there are unscrupulous tarot-readers out there who are just looking to make a buck from telling Granny that the money’s hidden in a safe-deposit box, and for $50.00, they’ll tell you the bank it’s in, and for $50.00 more, the number of the box. There are unscrupulous people out there bilking people out of money every day, in every way imaginable. Not just using what’s called the “supernatural”. Need any siding anybody? Or maybe a phone service you’ve never heard of?
Yes, I read tarot cards. Yes, I read them for other people. No, I do not ask money for the service. his is something I do because it is a way of helping people HEAL THEMSELVES. Others with more experience at this skill deserve to be allowed to speak, and to be payed for this service.
Besides, who says that anyone HAS to believe everything that is told to them? Caveat Emptor. One of the things I make plain at the beginning of a reading is that it is up to the reader to make their own judgment on the outcome, and to act or not as they see fit. All I am telling them is what COULD happen if things continue the way they have already started. It is up to them to make the choices, and to live with them.

24

So what the rube is really paying for is the con artist’s time, experience, and understanding of how to defraud suckers?

Last I checked, freedom of speech was not a defense to fraud.

Last I checked, ignorance was not a defense to fraud.

Oh, wait, intent is indeed an element of fraud. Damn. Maybe we can work out an exception for willful ignorance?

Ah well, last time I checked, ignorance was not a defense to government regulation of commercial speech. If an experienced tarot card nutjob wants to give away card-reading nonsense for free, the First Amendment protects her quite strongly. If she wishes do card readings for free, good for her. If she wishes to separate rubes from their money, it ain’t happening on my watch.

Yeah, it’s steps 2 through 686 that are such a bitch.

Wait, wait, one fallacy at a time, please.

Lovely. Would you care to put your purported tarot-reading skills to the test? Between you and the Teeming Millions, I’m sure we can work out some sort of respectable arrrangement.

Last I checked, caveat emptor was not a defense to fraud.

HOLY CRAP! WATCH OUT FOR THAT LIGHTNING!

Whew! Thank goodness things didn’t continue the way they had already started. Otherwise, my powers of foresight would have been proven and you would have been electrocuted.

25

Mintygreen

Opinion is not fact. I stated my opinion, you stated yours. Fact of fraud not proven.

If I tell you before-hand exactly what you’re going to get, just how is that fraud?

And as for the proof of my skills, I stated plainly in my last post that I don’t feel that I have enough experience with the cards to merit being paid for my time yet. I read for other people because they ask me to, I don’t offer, nor do I advertise.

If you would like a reading, ask politely please. I don’t read for people who are hostile to me. That’s the beauty of choice.

The same choice given to everyone who wishes to have the tarot read for them, or their daily horoscope in the paper, or maybe that stock tip from a friend. Believe it or not. It’s up to you.

If you wish to make fun of, or rant at those who do want to know what the cards have to say, I believe the forum for that is called The Pit.

26

I just wanted to remind folks that having a tarot card reading is not automatically a case of fraud. I mean, I’ve gotten my fortunes read by the tarot a few times, even though I know it’s all nonsense. Still vastly entertaining, though, especially when the fortune teller exercised her “powers” to the fullest and got everything wrong about my life.

Easily the most entertaining $10 I spent in San Francisco. :smiley:

27

Hey, is there any scientific proof that psychotherapy works? I say any contract between consenting adults is OK.

Dec: where do conservatices stand on letting adults make their own decisions as long as they aren’t hurting anyone? It can be scientific proven that gambling (lotteries, card clubs) will more often than not lose someone money. And yet we allow adults to make their own decision.

28

In general, people should be free to enter into voluntary arrangements with one another.

So I think it is very wrong to ban this practice.

29

IMHO Freudian psychoanalysis is a fraud, and I speak from bitter personal experience. It would please me no end if it were banned.

Maybe this is a split between libertarians and conservatives, although I don’t want to speak for libertarians.

People who get bilked may well be hurting themselves and their families. Furthermore IMHO it’s bad for society when the con-men are successful. The whole idea of capitalism is that people get rewarded for contributing to society. When the rewards are better for harming society, then capitalism doesn’t work. Traditional moral structure doesn’t work.

Unfortunately, quite a few rich people make money in a way that doesn’t contribute to society. In addition to the outright swindlers and aforementioned psychonalysts, there are many others whose work is legal, but not beneficial to overall society.

Legal gambling is a relatively new phenomenon in the US. IIRC state lotteries began only about 45 years ago. Gambling was illegal, except in Nevada, for about that length of time. Fifty years ago, it was “obvious” to most Americans that gambling was immoral.

Brea and rjung, you have made a good case that tarot readings should not be made illegal. However, you haven’t shown that’s it’s unconstitutional to prohibit them. The government has the Constitutional power to ban baneful businesses, such as prostitution, gambling, and selling unapproved prescription drugs. In order to find such a prohibitions unconstitutional, I think the Court would have to find that there was no basis at all for the prohibition.

It would be a more honest debate if it were on the grounds framed by Brea and rjung. One can make a case the tarot readings are harmful and one can also make the opposite case that they provide some value. In a way, the Freedom of Speech claim is a sneaky way of letting a court decide. I’d rather see the decision of whether to ban tarot readings based on a judgment of whether they do more harm than good.

30

Lets see if I got this right…

OK to sell cigarettes (“Helps Build Dead Bodies 12 Ways!”) Check.

OK to sell cars that burst into flames if you sneeze wrong. Got it.

OK to tithe to a Deity cooked up by some shepherds with cosmic-level delusions of granduer. Bit of a stretch, but ok.

OK to display and even sell books about Scientology. (Gorge rising…)

But not OK to sell Tarot card readings. Well, good, glad to have that all cleared up.

31

Jane Seymour can shuffle my tarot any damn time she likes . . .

32

Didn’t she get chopped by Hank Eight?

(Good head? Hell, none at all. You’re wierd.)

33

Would you ?
No idea, 'luci. As with all meaningful relationships, I can only remember the good parts . . .Actually, don’t tell Matron but I had an entirely different kind of ‘sticky end’ planned for Sweet Jane . . . .

34

You have a very good point. An acquaintance of mine said that he was asked to take an “anger management” counseling course. When he arrived the first day, he was told the success rate for the course was 3%. He decided to skip it. The course was offered by licensed psychotherapists.

Maybe psychics could give a percentage of success, and then be left alone by the bigots.

35

The government could also likely regulate psychoterapy. Indeed, don’t most states already have strict licensing requirements for psychotherapists?

36

Wouldn’t there be a different standard for banning some activity rather than for just regulating it?

37

Dec: I think you are correct in your assessment of a key difference between conservatives and libertarians. But I still say that tarot card readings and their “negative effects on the poor” are probably on par with the negative effects of state lotteries on the poor. Not sure how you weigh in on the latter, but maybe some statistics on the average amount of money spent on both by people below the poverty line would be enlightening.

38

Depends on the kind of commercial speech you’re talking about. See my explanation of First Amendment law above.

39

I read tarot cards, and I’m neither a con artist nor an idiot. I don’t think they have Mysterious Psychic Powers or can predict the future. I think they work more like a relative of the Rorschach test. The client sees a card, I tell her what experience the card represents, and encourage her to think about how that experience connects with her current situation. For me, it’s a way to think about your problems from a different direction by adding a random element to your thought processes. It’s also an opportunity to talk out whatever’s on your mind.

For me, tarot is cheap, amateur psychology, not magic. It may not be to everyone’s taste, but I don’t see any reason why what I do should be illegal.

40

I don’t know if statistics are available, probably not.

I know a lot of psychics personally and not a one of them has clients below the poverty line. One of my acquaintances recently returned from a trip to New York. His travel and expenses were paid by a wealthy couple having an anniversary party. He charged $300 for a reading and came back with a lot of money.
The poor seldom go to psychics, most are as skeptical as the posters here.

Psychics that are really talented are sought out by the rich and supported by them. Edgar Cayce, John Anderson, James Van Praagh, John Edward, all had/have very rich clients.

That psychics bilk the poor is skeptical mythology.
Generally people that buy lottery tickets are far from being poor.

The more I read these skeptical posts the more I wonder why people write about things they have no knowledge of.

Love
Leroy