explaining that when people who “believe they possess the power to predict what has not yet come to pass ... impart their beliefs to others, they are not acting fraudulently; they are communicating opinions which, however dubious, are unquestionably protected by the Constitution”
How later courts described this case
- explaining that when people who “believe they possess the power to predict what has not yet come to pass ... impart their beliefs to others, they are not acting fraudulently; they are communicating opinions which, however dubious, are unquestionably protected by the Constitution”
- interpreting article first, § 2, of the California constitution which provides, “[e]very person may freely speak, write and publish his or her sentiments on all subjects, being responsible for the abuse of this right”
- "We are unable to subscribe to Bartha's broad characterization of fortunetelling as an exclusively commercial activity, and to the theory that it therefore can be indiscriminately regulated, or, in this instance, wholly prohibited."
- “[S]ome persons believe they possess the power to predict what has not yet come to pass. When such persons impart their beliefs to others, they are not acting fraudulently; they are communicating opinions which, however dubious, are unquestionably protected by the Constitution.”
Written by the judges who cited it.
Later courts went against this
Disapproved on other grounds by Kasky v. Nike, Inc., 27 Cal. 4th 939 (2002)
39 Cal.3d 501, 513 (Spiritual), disapproved of on other grounds as stated in Kasky v. Nike, Inc. (2002) 27 Cal.4th 939, 968
Disapproved by Kasky v. Nike, Inc., 119 Cal. Rptr. 2d 296 (2003)
We now disapprove as ill-considered dicta two statements of this court in Spiritual Psychic Science Church v. City of Azusa (1985) 39 Cal.3d 501 [217 Cal.Rptr. 225, 703 P.2d 1119].
The opinion
KAUS, J.
I agree that the ordinance is overbroad. On the other hand, the First Amendment has been around for a long time, as have been state and local laws against fortunetelling and decisions upholding them. (See cases cited in In re Bartha (1976) 63 Cal.App.3d 584, 589 [ 134 Cal.Rptr. 39 , 91 A.L.R.3d 759 ].) It is a fact that plaintiff cites no case which elevates fortunetelling to the same free speech pedestal as does the majority. I cannot help feeling that the core values of the First Amendment have somehow become obliterated in the court’s somewhat formalistic application of precedent based on entirely different facts. In short, I am more optimistic than the majority that a constitutionally acceptable ordinance can be drafted.
Reynoso, J., concurred.