Can the government throw you in jail for offering advice on the Internet about what food people should buy at the grocery store?
Printable View
Can the government throw you in jail for offering advice on the Internet about what food people should buy at the grocery store?
Perhaps such could in some circumstance be framed as 'practicing medicine'. If one said "I would eat this for this or that reason." Its one thing. If one says "Eat to cure that" it could be construed as 'practicing medicine". As to what is meant by "the government" that is subject to interpretation no doubt.
Steve Cooksey, a diabetic blogger from Stanley, N.C., is the target of the North Carolina Board of Dietetics/Nutrition’s censorship. Three years ago, Steve—then a chronically ill, obese couch potato—was rushed to intensive care in a near coma. He was diagnosed with Type II diabetes and told that he would be dependent on insulin and other drugs for life. When he was discharged four days later, he resolved to regain control of his health.Quote:
Originally Posted by allodial
Attachment 1987
Inasmuch as plaintiff was not subjected to any actual or imminent enforcement of the Act, he lacks Article III standing. . . . Clearly, voluntarily removing parts of one’s website in response to an inquiry from a state licensing board is not a sufficient injury to invoke Article III standing.
Legal Definition of Standing
Well he probably would do well to be mindful of how he phrases things. Instead of telling people what to do he can say what he did and explain the results rather than telling them that doing this or that would cure. It is well known that one type of diabetes is likely related to or triggered by bacteria or mycoplasma. Similarly, someone might explain how Ebola is related to Lassa Fever and how it was treated. Explaining how to make sodium ascorbate is a chemistry lesson rather than telling someone how to cure Ebola although rather obvious inferences can be made.
Telling someone that A or B will cure {name that disease} without an adequate background in immunology and toxicology (its two-tiered (1) abatement of the cause (2) side effects thereof [elimination of toxins / healing and recovery/wound closure/organ mending/dealing with internal bleeding] [--i.e. for example someone might be able to tell someone how to get rid of a large cancerous tumor with a 100%+ effective method but if the tumor is removed too quickly IT COULD KILL "THE PATIENT"--one has to know what one is doing so that the hole will close up and so the toxins are eliminated). Steve Cooksey might do best minding his verbiage: telling someone what he did and what the results were is one thing. Telling them that what he did will cure something universally could be dangerous to others.