Doesn't that suggest the state can ban online courses if there is profit involved? That the state's power to "protect consumers" extends as far as their exposure to pure speech?
The law's intent is to protect Minnesota students from wasting their money on degrees from substandard institutions, Roedler says.
Obvious to whom? It's an ideological division whether money changes anything. The progressive left says yes, the classical liberal thinks no.
An analogy is publishing for profit. Is there any discussion of "regulating" books and newspapers, using the profit "issue" as a wedge to insert censorship? The free press has been indisputably "pure speech" for centuries, yet money was always involved (before the internet). MN argues control over educational courses to "protect consumers" from "wasting money"; by identical reasoning, they could protect readers from wasting money on the wrong books.
The law's intent is to protect Minnesota students from wasting their money on degrees from substandard institutions, Roedler says.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/college-inc/post/minneso...