In Washington, DC, talking without a license can land you in jail for 90 days. www.ij.org Tonia Edwards and Bill Main are lawbreakers. Nearly every day, they teach a group of people how to ride Segways, and then take them around Washington, DC, to talk about local sights and attractions. Their business is located near the National Archives, so one of the things they tell their customers is where the Bill of Rights is located. For this, the city government could throw Tonia and Bill in prison for three months. In Washington, DC, it is illegal for anyone to give a tour of the city for compensation without first obtaining a special license—quite literally, a license to describe. DC’s tour-guide licensing scheme is unconstitutional. Simply put, the government is not allowed to require people to get a license in order to talk. That is why Tonia and Bill have teamed up with the Institute for Justice to file a federal First Amendment challenge to the city’s tour-guide licensing scheme. Tonia and Bill’s lawsuit, filed on September 16, 2010 in the US District Court for the District of Columbia, will vindicate their right to earn an honest living by speaking as well as establish a very simple and important legal principle: The Constitution does not allow the government to be in the business of deciding who is—and who is not—allowed to speak about various topics. Vindicating this principle will help protect the rights of countless people across the country that communicate for a …
25 Comments
@trekleader If I want to hire an unlicensed lawyer, what right to you have to stand between us?
Segs in the City is an unlicensed tour operator; City Segway Tours is another tour operator that licenses their tour guides and follows the district’s municipal regulations.
Tea baggers and nutcases are trying to make this very reasonable requirement to license tour guides into a constitutional issue. It is not a violation of free speech. Should the District not license, say, lawyers? They communicate with people. This is just dick-suck libertarianism…
@Denon333dash888 Ha ha! Sounds like he enjoys the government’s help in thinning the competition. Good little sheep just take the test, and then another, and another. It’s to protect the innocent tourists from incorrect information… They must be protected by the government!
I’d love to see that test.
@tourguidedc I’d like to know how the test goes/went.
What a sorry excuse for not getting a license. I have been a guide in DC for 22 years . We really need someone to test people for their knowledge. Most guides make about $35 ph and getting paid for at least four hours.. The amount a group or organization is paying the guide one would think they would want someone who knows what they are talking about. If your guides have never been tested by anyone but you how will your customers know if they are getting their monies worth.
“Permits” and “licenses” are ways the government transfers wealth from the people to the tax coffers. It is paying for the privilege of exercising your rights. If I have a 1st Amendment right to speak, then requiring a license to do so is a fine for speaking.
In the old USSR the government made so many laws that essentially everyone was guilty of crime all the time. Then the Soviet police used that as a way of controlling people. The people did what they were told out of fear of arrest for simply “living.” There were so many ridiculous laws on the books that people couldn’t not avoid breaking them. It is coming to that point in the USA. Even “Constitutional” rights are “licensed” or require “permits.”
Good luck, I cant speak for anyone else here, but I can tell you I stand behind you and your efforts 100%.
Over regulation will make us all criminals very soon. Think about that really hard and remember, people with nothing to loose have everything to gain.
I’m typically not a single issue voter, but my new acid test is, “Did you vote to increase government control contrary to the delegated powers?” For city, county, states politicians: “Did you vote to increase the role of government where individual rights are compromised?”
The way things are going its just a matter of time before our benevolent government will required us to purchase operators licenses to take a shit!
Any professional who wants to be taken seriously wants his/her profession to regulated up to a point.
The way I see it, being a professional tourist guide fo 23 years and tourist guide trainer for the past 10 years – and tour operator for the past 2 years, is that some tour companies find it too cumbersome to make sure that their guides have optained minimum training for the job.
A licence improves the odds of quality, which surely benefits the customer, the guide and the tour operator.
@kelownascott – I hope you are kidding. If not, that is the dumbest comment I have read in a while. DC is not part of any state but it most certainly is subject to US law and the Constitution.
Well you see D.C. stands for the District of Columbia, which is not part of the United States, is not effected by the laws of the USA. That is why they will lose.
Well you see D.C. stands for the District of Columbia, which is not part of the United States, is not effected by the laws of the USA. That is why they will lose.
Well you see D.C. stands for the District of Columbia, which is not part of the United States, is not effected by the laws of the USA. That is why they will lose.
this is bullshit, where are the rights that are so important to defend, let the constitution rule, enough with these scams
@Thanos82
Regarding teachers, are you saying that DC forbids homeschooling entirely? If they do, then your point stands. However, if they do not, then you’re open to criticism on that front. While homeschooling regulation can (and often does) require the oversight of someone who is licensed, it does not require that the parents themselves actually be licensed teachers. In DC, anyone with a HS diploma may legally homeschool their child; no special license required.
@Thanos82
Firstly, I’m very impressed at the chance to have an actual discussion in YouTube comments. Much respect to you for that.
Secondly, I’d make a distinction between being able to set standards for books used in public schools (i.e. requiring that “textbooks” be from licensed authors) and actually prohibiting the publication of a “textbook” that wasn’t by a licensed author. I agree that they “could” place requirements on books used by schools, but not on the books themselves. cont…
@IMissLiberty
No I didn’t argue against myself. I pointed out the fact that we do charge some people for speech but not others. It is a matter of how it is framed. I framed it as protection money. People like the broadcast rules because, as your pointed out interference, it makes their life easier. Where is this right to no interference? There isn’t one. Your right to speech doesn’t compel others to shut up does it? Are you going to stick with “no law” or accept some laws are ok?
@Thanos82 You just argued against yourself. I think your arguments boil down to: regardless of morality or legality, if the government does it, it must be okay, and if it seems unfair to some, as long as they do it to all, it’s fair.
@TXKafir
The same world that thinks it absurd that only non-doctors can be allowed to state who is qualified to practice medicine. No offense by the way, just the most obvious example.
Of course perhaps they are the exception. But in any case where we are talking about occupational license, if we first accept such a license is a good idea (which I’ll agree is a “it depends” issue) then should those who award such license be experts in the field or laymen. The answer seems clear enough to me.
@Thanos82
Note: If you offer to do it not for profit your going to need a license also, just in case any was thinking of trying to take a ridiculous meaning from my comment.
@IMissLiberty
That was not referencing the commerce clause it was a reference to how commercial activities are treated differently than non-commercial activities, e.g. cut out your own appendix you do not require a license, offer to cut them out for profit you do. Although lets go for less lethal activities, say mole removal. Do it to yourself, no license required, offer to do it for profit, well I think you’ll find you very likely need one. And that would include advertising such services.
@IMissLiberty
Re: taxation = theft:
In short, it depends. Taxation |= theft legally (at least not in the US which does allow legal taxation). If you mean morally then you are in a gray area where reasonable people can disagree.
So broadcasters pay protection money is what your saying. If the airwaves belong to all of us then where is your share? Could the government charge you a bill for protecting you from others attempting to speak over you even if no one was actually attempting to?