The other day I wrote to a Michigan legislator who was unhappy about the quality of material available to the public and wanted a quality check operated by the government. There was a list of qualifications to be considered "qualified.". What should have been said was that this would not be "licensing," but be a "voluntary" system. Regardless, the logical result is that the government ends up "certifying" who is "qualified" to write for public consumption. The rest are illegitimate.
The Michigan lawmaker who proposed this system wrote to me and seemed upset with my interpretation. I wrote back:
There are laws covering slander, libel, sedition, fraud, etc. and those are sufficient redress for anyone abusing the right to free speech. I do not need some bureacrat deciding for me whether a story or opinion is fit for my consumption. I can make my own evaluation of the worth of the author and the publication. I would rather sift through a thousand unqualified opinions than risk someone tell me for my own good that "the science is settled."