We recently discussed the crackdown on sorcerers in Muslim countries. Mystics are finding themselves targeted in the United States as well in recent weeks. In New York and Florida, clairvoyants have been prosecuted for fraud and some cities and states are moving to ban soothsaying.
While I have little respect for fortune tellers, I do view such activities as protected by both free speech and free association principles. Indeed, laws requiring express disclosures that soothsaying or medium work is “for entertainment only” requires speech that clearly runs against the views of both mediums and their clients. Many believe in the supernatural and I fail to see why they have to post “entertainment” warnings but not mainstream religions that encourage prayer to Earthly rewards. Indeed, some televangelists assure their followers that faith can bring answers to their prayers for money and success.
Obviously, there are many fools who are easy to part with their money. For example, well-known romance novelist Jude Deveraux paid psychic Rosa Marks about $17 million over 17 years and later testified against her in a fraud trial in Florida. She says that she was duped into believing that Marks could transfer the spirit of Deveraux’s dead 8-year-old son into another boy’s body and reunite them. Putting aside Deveraux’s willingness to use another boy for such a transfer, she is an adult who decided to pay for the supernatural service. She now says “[w]hen I look back on it now, it was outrageous. I was out of my mind.” Well, yes, yes you were, but why is that a crime because someone sold you on a fantasy? A casino can take the same amount in gambling without recourse and a church can take it on the promise that she will be rewarded in the afterlife by reuniting with her son.
Marks, 62, of Fort Lauderdale, was found guilty of fraud and money-laundering conspiracies, mail and wire fraud, money-laundering and filing false tax returns. The Roma gypsy family was targeted in “Operation Crystal Ball” which led to the arrest of 10 family members. The Justice Department stated:
used magic tricks and false statements to frighten their victims into giving them large sums of money and other valuables, including jewelry and gold coins, to be “cleansed” of the evil spirits. The defendants told victims that they and their family would suffer terrible consequences, including diseases, hauntings, and financial hardships, unless they turned over their money and valuables for “cleansing” by the defendants.
In 2011, another psychic named Nancy Marks was convicted in Colorado of bilking clients. She allegedly told clients that “money is evil” while convincing them to give her $300,000.
Sylvia Mitchell, 39, a psychic in Grennwich Village, was also convicted of grand larceny in swindling two women out of nearly $140,000. She told Debra Saalfield, a professional dancer, that she was once an Egyptian princess and convinced Lee Choong to given her $100,000 as a way of improving her love life. To make matter even worse, one female juror told the media that she was afraid to give her name because Mitchell would “put a hex on me.” She said that Mitchell stared at her in a menacing supernatural way. The free speech concerns of the case were magnified by the allegations of promises of improved lives. However, there were specific allegations that money was taken to be held but not returned or used to buy charms. That brings elements of conduct that mitigate some free speech concerns.
I remain unclear on why some supernatural promises are protected while others are not. Consider such religious pitches below:
Benny Hin took a lotta money from my mom when my sister was dying.
I think there are enough laws on the book that deal with criminal fraud, without adding another specificity. Someone is a fool if they credit fortune tellers with any insight, but there is a difference between a $25 fee and defrauding someone of their life savings.
When are they going to go after the politicians who get elected by promising to close Guantanamo and then don´t?
And to think Nancy Reagan used astrologers in the whitehouse…..l
I wish they’d do the same to faith healers. It’s time someone said freedom of religion is not freedom to fraudulently exploit people’s “faith”. That said I wish people would be more skeptical and use critical thinking then we wouldn’t have a need for the state to step in to protect people from themselves.
Annie 1, November 5, 2013 at 1:06 pm
Both fortune telling and religion depend on faith. We will always have vulnerable people that can’t “devine” the difference between a person who is genuine and who is a faker. Any person who provides a service and doesn’t provide that service should be subject to legal ramifications. Pastors and psychics, hucksters and faith healers should have something serious that may make them think twice about preying on the weak. Equal punishment for spiritual fraud. Additionally I would be in favor of taking a closer look at the tax exempt status of churches.
=========================
There is a scientific discipline associated with fact/fiction, truth/falsehood, and how to determine which is which.
It is called Epistemology.
Far more than we like to admit, our “knowledge” is based much more on who we trust in or have faith in than what we have researched for ourselves in a knowledgeable manner.
Don de Drain 1, November 5, 2013 at 12:37 pm
I’m reminded of Judge Kozinski’s opinion in a fairly recent 9th Cir. case in which he said that the 1st Amendment protects the right to lie. (I can’t recall the case name but it was high profile.) I agreed with that opinion when I read it, although I can’t recall all the specifics of the opinion right now.
…
=================================
The Supremes affirmed Judge Kozinski so they would not be caught in a lie.
Both fortune telling and religion depend on faith. We will always have vulnerable people that can’t “devine” the difference between a person who is genuine and who is a faker. Any person who provides a service and doesn’t provide that service should be subject to legal ramifications. Pastors and psychics, hucksters and faith healers should have something serious that may make them think twice about preying on the weak. Equal punishment for spiritual fraud. Additionally I would be in favor of taking a closer look at the tax exempt status of churches.
What about marketing….how an add can promise that you will feel great, and totally enjoy whatever it is they are selling, How is that different?
Reblogged this on The Firewall.
I’m reminded of Judge Kozinski’s opinion in a fairly recent 9th Cir. case in which he said that the 1st Amendment protects the right to lie. (I can’t recall the case name but it was high profile.) I agreed with that opinion when I read it, although I can’t recall all the specifics of the opinion right now.
But like all rights, there are limits. If you intentionally tell a lie with the intent of defrauding someone out of their hard earned money, that is a crime in many (all?) circumstances. Which means that we have to draw the line somewhere between lies that can be punished criminally and lies that can not be punished criminally. (Let’s ignore civil liability for now.)
Drawing that line is fraught with difficulty. And there is certainly a lack of consistency and a lack of intellectual honesty in the way this line is drawn in our society.
Someone can go to jail for filing a materially false income tax return merely by intentionally misstating their occupation on their return, if that misstatement is determined to be “material” in the factual context of the case. Yet, persons who are running for political office can often tell out and out lies without being criminally punished at all, even when the lies are “material” in context of the election.
It is not sufficient to say that we will only punish speech that causes “harm.” There is often widespread disagreement regarding what is sufficient “harm” to warrant criminal punishment. Just look at the Supreme Court’s recent jurisprudence on what kind of conduct can result in someone being convicted for “material” support of terrorist groups.
In the context of “religion” and “psychics”, it seems to me that, generally, the focus should be on the intent of the person asking for the money. Drawing the line between “evil motive” (i.e., you don’t believe what you are saying and just want to get someone’s money) and “genuine belief” (I really believe that if you give me- or some organization with which I am affiliated- your money that you will go to heaven, or that you will be able to talk to your dead relative’s spirit, or that you will be able to talk to your dog) is not easy. But if we are going to draw a line, that seems to me to be a good place to draw it.
The problem when you inject religion is that people hold all sorts of beliefs that are objectively unusual. This makes it difficult to draw the line. And if we say that we will err on the side of caution and draw the line in a way that avoids punishing someone for genuinely believing in some really bizarre religious beliefs, that allows hucksters to “hide” behind religion and use it to protect themselves from being prosecuted.
I don’t have the answers. But I do predict that this type of “line drawing” will continue to be difficult for a very long time. (I hope I can’t be prosecuted for this “prediction.”)
There’s no way that “free speech” encompasses intentional deception. Fortune telling is fraud, pure and simple. It’s no different than selling snake oil as a cure for cancer. The latter is prohibited by law; the former should be, too.
This is the topic of my wife’s 3rd book currently being researched. We have both dealt w/ gypsies[I won’t call them Roma]. And while I am a person big on personal responsibility it must be understood these folks prey on the vulnerable like all con men/women. I have had to help defend shrinks who prey on vulnerable patients. Those were some of the most difficult cases to work, and I turned down a few. I think most people have empathy for those victims. Well, the people who are preyed upon by these fortune tellers are no different than those preyed upon by predatory shrinks. Gullible, probably, vulnerable and lonely, almost always.
A lot of these problems turn on a matter of words. A psychotic can go to a psychotherapist and get treatment and the government will pay. The same nutcase can go to a psychic and get advice but not treatment but the government wont pay the sorcerer or psychic any money. The nut will get pills that last for a month but if he gets good advice he wont need the pills and wont need the government. The government wants you to need it. It is fairly simple unless your name is Simon. Or Garfunkel.
Every shrink and psychic in America ought to get religion. They need a head scarf to protect them from the likes of Bloomberg in New York.
These must be the precursor prosecutions to the prosecution of the real Fortune Teller Fellers … The Wall Street Gang.
Problem is determining who is a “real” psychic (not stealing money but gives readings, etc) vs who is a grafter.
I abhor these folks who prey on the needs of others for solace (and yes I know many consider religion to be of that ilk) by promising to get in touch with their loved ones or who can foretell the future, etc. But, some people believe in this sincerely . For them these ‘psychics” serve in lieu of a psychotherapist, minister, etc.
Do we protect people from their own gullibility?
Reblogged this on Brittius.com.
A pox and hex on all televangelists.
Fortune tellers and pastors …well at least the fortune tellers don’t get tax exemptions!