Encyclopedia Britannicareferred to as “this leading authority of the world,” was entered
into the court record: “The belief in a connection between the heavenly bodies and
the life of man has played an important part in human history.... Men of intellectual
eminence ... have convinced themselves that ...astrology has a foundation in truth.
[One scientist] insisted indeed that it was a mistake to confuse astrology with fortune-
telling, and maintained that it was a physical science just as much as geology depend-
ing on ascertained facts, and grossly misrepresented by being connected with magic.”
The telling component of the trial came when the judge asked Evangeline
Adams to demonstrate her art by interpreting a mystery chart from birth data he sup-
plied. Adams is said to have done a remarkable job on the interpretation. Coleman
calls it “perfect” and the judge later said the accurate reading gave him valuable and
useful insight into his son’s character and behavior. Judge John H. Freschi said, in rul-
ing from the bench, “The defendant raises astrology to the dignity of an exact science.”
Astrologers have taken great pride in that statement. Adams was found not guilty.
The New York ordinance, and its many similar “siblings” in other jurisdictions,
is designed to prevent fraud. Antiastrology laws are also predicated on the false
assumption that, without exception, “the business of fortune telling is inherently
fraudulent” so that “its regulation or prohibition is required in order to protect the
gullible, superstitious and unwary” (from In re Bartha[1976]).
These laws may prevent or punish fraud, but they have the unacceptable and
unconstitutional result of restricting the honest and helpful speech of astrologers. This
is akin to prohibiting drinking to forestall drunkenness and spousal abuse; to banning
driving to prevent speeding; or raising a sales or use tax to the level of a fine in an
attempt to prevent consumption. The rights of the many cannot be sacrificed to pro-
tect or punish the few. Although it is seldom argued, antiastrology ordinances also
restrict the public’s right to access astrological information and counsel. The public
(except for fundamentalists in religion and their counterparts, the skeptics in science)
is not clamoring for less astrology, but more.
The most important recent legal victory is known as the Azusa Decision. The
California Supreme Court overturned, as an unconstitutional infringement of free
speech, an Azusa, California, ordinance that completely banned fortune-telling. The
court held that astrologers and fortune-tellers or palmists, have the same constitution-
ally protected right to express and charge for their opinions as other mainstream fore-
casters. That the speech may be false is irrelevant, the court held. Banning, or unduly
restricting, astrologers’ speech is a “content-based” restriction, one of the most egre-
gious violations of the First Amendment.
Astrology’s acceptance and popularity actually rose from 22 percent in the
early 1970s to 47 percent in the mid-1990s, according to Gallup and Lifemagazine
surveys. However, many of the laws on the books in their latest revisions date from the
1950s, an era of fear of the different or unknown. Before that, many laws were revised
in the 1920s and 1930s, or in the 1900s, times of economic and social uncertainty. At
various points, magnetism, hypnotism, and psychology, which are not noted as predic-
tive sciences, were added to the lists of many practices prohibited in the laws covering
occult arts or fortune-telling. They are never called “astrology” ordinances. That is,The Law and Astrology
[394] THEASTROLOGYBOOK