Court ruling clears the future for Montgomery fortunetellers

IS FORTUNETELLING protected by the First Amendment? That was the question before the Maryland Court of Appeals last week. Its answer? "As I see it, yes" -- a 6 to 1 ruling that overturns Montgomery County's decades-old ban on fortunetelling for remuneration.

The decision is not so important for what it says about the craft of fortunetelling -- indeed, Judge Clayton Greene Jr. noted in the majority opinion that "Fortunetelling may be pure entertainment, it may give individuals some insight into the future, or it may be hokum." What matters is the finding that a legislature cannot strip First Amendment protection from a whole category of speech by declaring it "inherently deceptive."

For those who believe that knowing the future is impossible, banning fortunetelling might seem a logical step to protect consumers. And even though Nick Nefedro, who brought the case against the Montgomery statute, believes that he has "inklings" about things to come, legal precedent varies as to whether such a belief allows him to withstand the law. Certainly the First Amendment does not protect a psychic who knowingly bilks clients of their money and trust: The Constitution offers no protection for fraudulent speech.

But as the court noted, the act of fortunetelling consists of more than mere deception. It is entertaining, at times therapeutic, and whatever insights it offers can confer benefits beyond simply describing future events. Because of this -- and because of the dangers inherent in categorically restricting a form of speech -- the court's favored case-by-case approach makes sense.

Rather than banning fortunetelling out of hand, Montgomery County must use the anti-fraud laws currently in place to target any cases of abuse. With luck, no fraudulent fortunes will be in the cards.