The Right To Show Paint Samples, Fabric Swatches, and Finials Upheld in Connecticut
The Institute for Justice has won another victory for economic freedom.
A federal judge today struck down a state law that unconstitutionally censored the free speech of interior designers in Connecticut.
In a thorough, clearly worded 23-page opinion, U.S. District Judge Mark Kravitz systematically considered and rejected each of the state's arguments in support of the challenged law, a so-called "title act" for interior designers. Title acts are laws that regulate only the speech, but not the work associated with a given occupation. Thus, in Connecticut-as in 46 other states around the country including New York, Massachusetts, and California-anyone may work as an interior designer with no license or other special government oversight of any kind. But since 1983, Connecticut law has prohibited anyone not registered as an interior designer with the Department of Consumer Protection from referring to himself as an "interior designer," even when that term accurately describes what he does.
Are you paying attention, Senator DeMint? We're nearing the end of the ride when it comes to the "slide" into socialism.
I remember a conversation I had about a year ago with a lady who works in a furniture store. Somehow, this subject came up, and every argument I made was countered by her with the simple notion that people who spend their the time and money to get their license are deserving of it. That's all. For all I know, you show up, pay your money into the collection plate held out by the typical government revenue goon, then you pick a cot and sleep for for four days straight; only to wake up with a little plastic-coated badge laying next to you with your name on it.
The utter nonsense of it all. Am I to be victimized by the wrong shade of beige painted on my walls? Maybe the throw pillows on the bed were just too much for my senses? Oh! How I wished she would have put that dresser on the wall next to the Ficus plant! How absurd.
The Institute for Justice sent me an email containing part of their argument for striking down this particular law:
IJ’s strategic research has shown such regulations result in higher prices, less variety, and fewer employment opportunities, especially for minorities and older mid-career switchers, without any benefit to public health or safety (the standard by which all such regulations should be judged).
I don't agree with it entirely since benefits to public health or safety are subjective. I'd have the government out of licensing entirely for the reasons above, yet others would call for doctors and nurses to have licenses. Rather than licenses, I would rather they have the ability to do their jobs with a certain level of competence as well as come up with ways for this impatient patient to not have to perform the 90 minute, room-shifting ritual required to have a brief chat with the doctor. The economic side of the equation mandates that competition is needed in health care. Licensing reduces that.
Still, it's a good victory. Surely, the licensed interior decorators in the state are upset that they spent that time and money getting their license. No doubt that's been offset by their higher prices for the proper placement of candles and other quality knick-knacks which are a pain to dust. Designers of the world, unite!




Recent Comments