That question is at the heart of a lawsuit filed by the Institute for Justice on behalf of Steve Cooksey, the North Carolina whose diet blog was targeted by a state licensing board.
Cooksey maintains that he should be allowed to offer dietary advice even though he is not a licensed dietician and that by prohibiting him from doing so, the board is violating his freedom of speech.
The Institute for Justice agreed and decided to take his case pro-bono. In a press release issued yesterday, the institute said the lawsuit “seeks to answer one of the most important unresolved questions in First Amendment law: When does the government’s power to license occupations trump free speech?”
While North Carolinians are free to talk or write generally about diet, they cannot, under the law, give anyone personal dietary advice, said Cooksey’s lawyer Jeff Rowes, a senior attorney for the Institute for Justice.
“So I could publish a book or blog post that says I think Paleo is great for the human race; everyone should do Paleo,” Rowes said. “What you can’t do under the statute is give anyone personal advice.”
“So if you said to me ‘hey, what do you think of Paleo?’ And I said ‘I think it’s awesome.’ And then you said ‘I’m trying to fit into my wedding dress. What foods should I eat that will help me get there?’ At that point, I’m giving you personal dietary advice. That is illegal.”
North Carolina takes occupational licensing to the extreme. While some licensing is appropriate to ensure public safety and prevent fraud in areas where the potential damage is great and people cannot reasonably be expected to protect themselves individually — doctors and nurses for example — other licensing is simply a vehicle to prevent competition and collect fees. Our state’s classis examples of overreach are licensing required for barbers, African hair braiders, and landscapers.
