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.
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.
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 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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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”.
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.
Nobody charges you to read the Bible. In fact, they are often given away, like in hotel rooms.
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.
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.