That a speaker is state-licensed and engaged in commerce is not itself a justification for the state's restricting the speaker's speech. See, e.g., Consolidated Edison Co. v. Public Serv. Comm'n, 447 U.S. 530 (1980). That the speaker is a professional speaking to a client might justify some restrictions; that's the issue in the California restriction on sexual-orientation-change therapy case. But I see no basis for thinking that it would justify a restriction on a doctor's simply asking a client about guns.
Eugene From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of James Heath Sent: Monday, January 21, 2013 5:47 PM To: [email protected] Subject: California doctors' boundaries Also, doctors are state-licensed (and engaged in commerce) so I assume the state can set conditions that are narrower than conduct on ordinary citizens.
_______________________________________________ To post, send message to [email protected] To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/firearmsregprof Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
