Do You Have the Right To Give Free Advice?

[gryphon]

Do these cases impact giving advice here?  TheQ has talked about giving specific legal advice before.

+++++

Steve Cooksey started both a blog and an online advice column in hopes of encouraging others interested in giving a low-carb lifestyle a try.  However, the North Carolina Board of Dietetics/Nutrition declared illegal an instance in which he opined, “I do suggest that your friend eat as I do and exercise as best they can.” Cooksey was informed that whether for free or through compensation, he could not provide such nutritional “counseling” without becoming a licensed nutritionist.

John Rosemond, America’s longest running newspaper columnist writes a syndicated Dear Abby-style column, running in over 200 newspapers, in which he provides general, commonsense parenting advice. He holds a master’s degree in psychology and is a North Carolina-licensed psychologist. However, the Kentucky attorney general decided that the sort of one-on-one “dialogue” Rosemond has with anonymous readers on his column conflicts with licensing board requirements, and is occupational “conduct.” Rosemond was told to either stop publishing or face jail and/or fines.

The Supreme Court has yet to directly decide whether licensing laws and regulations can trump free speech. Until they do, it is worth contemplating the potential effects licensing could have on our own lives...The First Amendment has long upheld our right to simply converse with and advise each other as laypersons. The bureaucratic stricturing of occupational licensing regimes is threatening the exciting possibility of maintaining such basic First Amendment rights within the broadened realities of our modern age.

Instead of allowing individuals to engage in everyday dialogue as has occurred for thousands of years, then choose to seek out a licensed professional if so desired, the former is being barred at the behest of empowering the latter. This threat to our speech should be of great concern to us all, both in regards to our own abilities to freely converse and to the weakening implications potentially in store for our nation’s long-held Constitutional values.

http://townhall.com/columnists/rebeccafurdek/2013/10/21/do-you-have-the-right-to-give-free-advice-n1727431/page/full

[bigt8261]

To me the answer is simple, which is probably why government officials missed it.

There is a difference between simple advice and legal/licensed advice. The difference is fairly easy to discern, but just in case, simple advice usually still contains a disclaimer.

[jgillmanjr]

I'm of the opinion that occupational licensure is a joke and should go away.

Needless to say, I believe that people should be able to give whatever advice that is willing to be accepted by the receiving party.

[FASBOLD]

I'm not sure we should do away with all licensing/certification requirements. The argument for apprenticeship is a form of licensing/certification.

I do believe that one's opinion should not force one to seek a license or certification in order to give it. And that a professional with such credentials should not be barred from giving it.

To say that a layperson can't say how they did what they did to achieve a certain thing, like weight loss, or getting out of debt, or whatever, is ridiculous to think they need a license.

Rent seeking is not a term I had encountered before. I had to Google it to get a clear explanation. One option said that the terminology did not explain what it was, which I agree. This definition makes it clear: "People are said to seek rents when they try to obtain benefits for themselves through the political arena. They typically do so by getting a subsidy for a good they produce or for being in a particular class of people, by getting a tariff on a good they produce, or by getting a special regulation that hampers their competitors. " SOURCE: http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/RentSeeking.html

Taking the government out of the licensing/certification process would be an option, and if someone did not display the proper credentials or was not on the list of those with that credential, then you would know to steer clear.

I don't like the idea of just anyone hanging out a shingle and saying they are an appropriately experienced person as a doctor, lawyer, architect, or engineer.

With a mechanic, I still go to places that I have had a recommendation, the same for the above professions. But if someone recommended a professional without the proper credentials, I would be very hesitant to go there.

Getting insurance to pay out to a doctor without the right credentials would be interesting.

I'm not so sure it is a simple as do away with all government regulation. Regulations that I think are dumb, other might see as essential and vice versa. Transitioning to each profession doing the certification would not be that hard, since they are involved in the current law side of it now.

With all of the freedom of a world with no regulations, people have to be prepared to put in a lot  more effort in researching and understanding things about all aspects of life than they do now. I don't see the majority of people wanting to wake up and do this. Freedom takes a lot of energy that most people would rather expend being couch potatoes.

So in the end, I see your point, and see how I could agree with it.

[jgillmanjr]

I'm not sure we should do away with all licensing/certification requirements. The argument for apprenticeship is a form of licensing/certification.

Actually, I'm not arguing for apprenticeship as a requirement, but rather as a way for an individual to gain experience in a field. This is perfectly compatible with a free market mentality.

With all of the freedom of a world with no regulations, people have to be prepared to put in a lot  more effort in researching and understanding things about all aspects of life than they do now. I don't see the majority of people wanting to wake up and do this. Freedom takes a lot of energy that most people would rather expend being couch potatoes.

Actually, the free market could take care of that, too.

Voluntary organizations can be formed (and are so formed already) that they accredit a particular member's skill in a field. Those that aren't good would not (or rather, should not) be allowed in such an organization, unless they want to face a reduction in credibility. The free market wins again.

[Shadow Bear]

I'm of the opinion that occupational licensure is a joke and should go away[/url].

I absolutely agree; I want to be a brain surgeon, but that licensing BS keeps getting in the way of a 7 figure income....

[CV67PAT]

I absolutely agree; I want to be a brain surgeon, but that licensing BS keeps getting in the way of a 7 figure income....

Samurai Brain Surgeon

[linux203]

"Penny for your thoughts?" and everyone throws in their 2 cents.

If you can't distinguish between the opinions of a layman and the advice of a competent, trained professional, you shouldn't be making decisions on your own.  The disclaimers that so many people attach to anything they say is ridiculous.

If someone implies, presents, declares, or otherwise infers themselves as a licensed and/or trained professional, and are not, there should be recourse.  If this is done for financial gain, it's called fraud.  Otherwise, it should be protected as free speech and caveat emptor applies.

[91 whiskey]

I'm of the opinion that aside from an assault on the First Amendment in this case, licensing for such things as being a barber, babysitting, driving a taxi, driving a snow plow, owning a restaurant or selling alcohol is just a money grab.   It's also a way to drive down competition.   Restaurant A that has a liquor license doesn't want competition.   They then lobby whom ever is in charge of granting such things to deny a liquor license for restaurant b that is opening up close by.   Then there's the Airbnb thing where GR wanted to make it illegal to advertise rooms for rent unless whoever places the ad has a $2,000+ business license.   Blatant protectionism in my opinion.

[jgillmanjr]

I'm of the opinion that aside from an assault on the First Amendment in this case, licensing for such things as being a barber, babysitting, driving a taxi, driving a snow plow, owning a restaurant or selling alcohol is just a money grab.   It's also a way to drive down competition.   Restaurant A that has a liquor license doesn't want competition.   They then lobby whom ever is in charge of granting such things to deny a liquor license for restaurant b that is opening up close by.   Then there's the Airbnb thing where GR wanted to make it illegal to advertise rooms for rent unless whoever places the ad has a $2,000+ business license.   Blatant protectionism in my opinion.

You, Sir, are right on the money. Rent seeking.

[TheQ]

All government permits are money grab that could be better handled by private market review services like underwriter labs.

It's a racket promoted by a gang that claims a monopoly on the use of force.