Can the government throw you in jail for offering advice

touche, I misread your post. oops

How about if the non medical advice giver backs it up with quotes from the New England Journal of Medicine or similar sources?

If Steve Cooksey takes the North Carolina Board of Dietetics/Nutrition to court, I predict that he would prevail if he has never claimed to be a licensed dietician. It would not be difficult to successfully argue that home remedies, folk cures, diet, and lifestyles are perfectly legal and are protected by free speech under the 1st amendment of the Constitution.

Should the people of North Carolina be free to decide if they do not want unqualified individuals offering dietary advice?

I am not sure why a mother giving medical advice in private would be different than a person telling another person in private what they think they should do to be healthy. I still do not think it is moral to license people, but if you accept it, as long as they don't claim to be a doctor. If you had to get all your legal advice from lawyers and medical advice from doctors, we would all be screwed.

Here is the part of the constitution that describes the governments rights to regulate what people say.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

By law, the federal govt via the constitution, cannot limit what people can say, there are no exceptions. This does not mean it plays out this way, but it is the law.

States and local authorities can do so, but not if they have similar provisions. This does not stop them from making fake laws and enforcing them, like so many that we have, but it does not make it legal.

In Archer's world, what is to stop authorities from making every profession licensed and restricting any or all speech.

Another question about free speech for Archer, could you define free speech, because my understanding from your definitions is that all speech is subject to govt approval.

And how does the govt get away with publishing the food pyramid?

Dog, the answer is no, the people of NC can be free to decide what advice they take, but they should not encroach on the liberty of others to both give and recieve bad advice. In order to get the entitlement that some people want, they need to eliminate a liberty. And where is the cost benefit analysis. People should NOT be able to vote away any freedom, that is not the system. We put freedom of speech in place to avoid this discussion. The people should not be able to quiet an individual simply by voting it that way. Voting is not the end all and not applicable to liberties, like free speech, or at a minimum should have a higher threshold to limit speech, like say 95% in stead of 51%.

And why are people so afraid of words, do you really need the govt to protect you from this, bad advice? How stupid are you and those you know? Are these adults we are worried about?

And what the heck to we do about all the bad advice the govt gives out, at our expense?

And what do we do if the govt qualifies the advice givers and it is later found out that they did not do a good job of qualifying the people - which happens all the time. Who is now liable? If you voted the restrictions in are you? I am a contractor, and I have never been in a state that actually cared about the quality of the contractor, they just want money, they give false confidence countless homeowners, even to fake inspections, but never take liability for their actions while driving up the costs to everyone to not make things measurably safer.

This process of having non experts license "experts" so that laypeople can become even dumber and less critical or responsible just does not seem like an improvement or something that we should work towards or accept freely, but we do and do so aggressively.

Gotta love the do gooders that screw everything up and make everything everyone's business.

Go eat a brick, it will make my life better, there is some advice.

on that note wrote: I am not sure why a mother giving medical advice in private would be different than a person telling another person in private what they think they should do to be healthy.

it isn't....this was never about giving "private" information.

I still do not think it is moral to license people, but if you accept it, as long as they don't claim to be a doctor. If you had to get all your legal advice from lawyers and medical advice from doctors, we would all be screwed.

this was also not about where you choose to get your advice....that is your choice.

Here is the part of the constitution that describes the governments rights to regulate what people say.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

By law, the federal govt via the constitution, cannot limit what people can say, there are no exceptions. This does not mean it plays out this way, but it is the law.

States and local authorities can do so, but not if they have similar provisions. This does not stop them from making fake laws and enforcing them, like so many that we have, but it does not make it legal.

In Archer's world, what is to stop authorities from making every profession licensed and restricting any or all speech.

Another question about free speech for Archer, could you define free speech, because my understanding from your definitions is that all speech is subject to govt approval.

than your understanding is wrong.

And how does the govt get away with publishing the food pyramid?

A reasonably intelligent person would probably know that the food pyramid is developed by nutritionists and doctors, who have every right to make their opinions and advice public.

Dog, the answer is no, the people of NC can be free to decide what advice they take, but they should not encroach on the liberty of others to both give and recieve bad advice. In order to get the entitlement that some people want, they need to eliminate a liberty. And where is the cost benefit analysis. People should NOT be able to vote away any freedom, that is not the system. We put freedom of speech in place to avoid this discussion. The people should not be able to quiet an individual simply by voting it that way. Voting is not the end all and not applicable to liberties, like free speech, or at a minimum should have a higher threshold to limit speech, like say 95% in stead of 51%.

As far as your right to take bad advice.....no problem with that, there is no law against being stupid....but I still believe you don't have the right to give medical or legal advice in a public forum without a license/expertise to do that. The operative word there is "public"....you cannot set yourself to be an expert in medicine if you are not. What is so hard to understand about that? It's fraud. Free speech does not allow you to break the law.

I see how this works now. It's OK to give advice about what one should eat if you are a doctor, nutritionist, or if you are a big greedy corporation:

https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQ1UsxT1b-CX9Mp4Bqu6Qr89zV1Hm-1Cq9a21p52HlaM-gNvNBW

Someone's argument just collapsed.

Rick wrote: I see how this works now. It's OK to give advice about what one should eat if you are a doctor, nutritionist, or if you are a big greedy corporation:

https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQ1UsxT1b-CX9Mp4Bqu6Qr89zV1Hm-1Cq9a21p52HlaM-gNvNBW

Someone's argument just collapsed.

Gee Rick, you must be so proud of that silly post.