8 thoughts on “Free Speech”

  1. At first glance, I didn’t think this was the strongest case to make a stand. Providing medical advice without license has been considered a no-no for some time. We can argue philosophically whether that is good or not, but modern progressive legal doctrine is to find precedence, and that exists. Then I got to:
    “The State Board also told Steve that his private emails and telephone calls with friends and readers were illegal.”

    What?! That’s down right chilling when you consider what it would take to enforce such a ruling. Forget ease dropping on terrorist, this gives the government the legal right to wire tap anyone who gives a suggestion on how to eat healthy.

    1. No, it doesn’t, any more than laws against e.g. statutory rape allow them to place a camera in every teenager’s bedroom. A judicial ruling that X is illegal is not a judicial ruling that the government is empowered to do whatever it takes to prevent or detect every instance of X. It only allows the government to use its existing authority, adequate or otherwise, to pursue that end.

      If one of Cooksey’s fair-weather friends calls the police or prosecutor and says that Cooksey is continuing to offer unlicensed dietetic advice via email, or of Cooksey choses to brag about it or some other such thing, then the police can ask for a wiretap warrant, just like always. If that leads to his arrest, then he unquestionably has standing to sue. If they tap his phone or email without warrant, that also gives him standing to sue, but over a different issue that won’t address the question of amateurs being allowed to issue dietary advice.

      1. I agree with the notion that a ruling doesn’t necessarily provide authorization. I overstated my concern a bit. I focused a bit on the private aspect of that sentence rather than email or phone call, which aren’t exactly passive events. I’m picturing a person who previously developed a relationship with Cooksey and found success in the diet. Person calls Cooksey to gain more information. Such an act would be illegal for Cooksey to respond, and that seems absurd and chilling. However, you are correct, it doesn’t actually give free reign to prosecutors.

  2. The lack of standing ruling surely won’t hold up. If the government can censor your writings or seizez them, and you can’t challenge them unless they actually levy a fine or arrest you, then the First Amendment is totally meaningless. Censorship doesn’t require arrest, it just requires censorship.

  3. I’ve often wondered about the seeming arbitrary and capricious application o the notion of “standing.” If one looks at the torrent of lawsuits filed by “environmentalists,” one fails to see any application of the idea of standing in cases where they seek to block future activity. Not only has no one been harmed, but claims are often made which violate the laws of physics (especially in anti-nuclear power plant suits). How do they get away with it?

Comments are closed.