The U.S. Supreme Court declined last week to hear a case on commercial speech brought by interior decorators who claim that Florida is denying their free speech rights by requiring years of school, apprenticeship and an exam before a person can take clients in interior design.
Lawyers for the plaintiffs argue that Florida’s law is an unfair burden and unconstitutional in restricting speech. -db
From a commentary in The National Law Journal, January 4, 2012, by Clark Neily and Paul Sherman.
One Comment
The decision not to hear this case is effectively allowing Government agencies a free hand to abuse self employeds with stringent requirements and dictatorial regulations and abuse of authority which generate irreverence for laws in general.
In my case, I was fined and denied my real estate brokers license despite the fact that there was no evidence or testimony t o support the State’s allegations, including the testimony of the State’s own invest itgator who testified he found no evidence to support the State’s case. Yet, i was found guilty ,m fined $2,250 and advised to appeal the decision if i disagreed at my own expense. It is bltantly obvious that the expense of an appeal was used by the State, with its bottomless pockets, to discoiurage me from filing an appeal.
Thus, I concluded since disgregard for my rights and the Rule of Law was practiced by the State, I, too, shall follow their path.
Comments are closed.