Originally posted by twhitehead
Whether they should be "brought to account" for deception depends on a number of factors.
1. If deception is not significantly harmful and may be doing some good then should it be stopped. (I am in no way making any claims that mediums fit this description, merely suggesting that it might be possible).
2. Can you prove that the mediums are being decepti ...[text shortened]... what extent are the victims being willingly deceived?
6. Who should make the decision?
I think the last of your questions would lead to the others being answered.
6. Who should make the decision?
If someone came to the realisation that they had suffered injury or loss, then could they not ask the courts to consider the matter, and prosocute or sue for compensation. The problem would be what was the injury or loss, and how had it come about.
If a medium for example charges for a session, but as 'entertainment', say, then I doubt there could be much comeback. Someone who messes with the individuals mind eg a hypnotist, would be at a greater risk I would suggest.
If the individual suffered greater injury, eg the individual had for the interim been happy with the deception and genuinely believed they had been in touch with the spirits, but the medium later said that they had made it all up, then that would be cruel indeed, but legally culpable? mmmmmm
'The law is an ass.'
I can't see it happening, until it does of course. To see Colin Fry for example saying things like 'your [deceased] father is standing beside me telling you to take care of your mother and sisters'; how is that challangeable?