DC tour guides: New regs infringe on free speech
We read:
"If you’re a tour guide in the nation’s capital, new regulations are in place to ensure you know L’Enfant Plaza from Logan Circle.
But the operators of a Segway tour — Segs in the City — say the new regulations are an unconstitutional infringement on free speech.
Baltimore residents Bill Main and Tonia Edwards, who own Segs in the City, filed a federal lawsuit Thursday asking a judge to invalidate the new regulations.
Under the new requirements, tour guides must pass a 100-question, multiple choice exam that tests their knowledge of the city’s architecture and history, among other things.
The Institute for Justice, a Virginia-based legal group representing the tour guides, says the government cannot block people from giving tours and talking about the city’s history simply because they don’t hold a license.
Source
Nice try but no cigar, I suspect
11 comments:
I have seen this in several other cities around the U.S., so this is really nothing new. The justification is that if a tourist is paying for a tour, there is an expectation of accurate depth of knowledge about the tour content. Another justification is to control what tours are constantly driving around the city in an effort to reduce traffic congestion--vital to many smaller towns. So the cities impose license requirements that usually include testing.
The thing is that the license does not prohibit the tour guides from educating about points of interest outside the realm of that base knowledge.
-sig
This is completely unnecessary, I understand that certain professions require licensing, such as contractors. But building a home is not the same as giving a tour! A bad tour is not going to kill you, besides, just because a tour guide scores 80% on a test doesn't mean he's going to be an interesting tour guide. This is nothing more than an excuse for DC to collect fees.
With a government that openly states there's nothing they can't do, they don't stand a chance of winning this suit...
A "licensing" scheme where the license is something voluntary, could have marketing value, but a mandatory exam (no doubt followed shortly by mandatory texts and other requirements for the content of the tours...) is tantamount to censorship.
When are they going to initiate such exams on taxi drivers? I had a taxi driver in DC where we had to give him directions to Union Station (it was after the Metro had closed for the night).
If a tour guide cannot provide a good tour, they will be pushed out of business from bad reviews, and complaining customers. If they need a real test, it shouldn't be multiple choice, they should be required to take an arbiter on a tour and show what they know.
"When are they going to initiate such exams on taxi drivers? I had a taxi driver in DC where we had to give him directions to Union Station (it was after the Metro had closed for the night). "
They've done so in London since the reign of Queen Victoria - called "The Knowlege" by black-cab drivers , it requires candidates for a taxi licence to have an almost encylopaedic knowlege of London streets.
The thing is that the license does not prohibit the tour guides from educating about points of interest outside the realm of that base knowledge.
No, what the LACK of a license does is restrict the free speech of people.
This is one of those things that is being pushed by a trade association who looks to make money from the regulation.
What is even more ridiculous is the penalty for not having a license. You can get thrown in jail for 90 days.
This is a case of prior restraint on non-commercial speech.
It should go down in flames.
If they can license flower arranging, interior decorators, and hair stylists, they can force licensing on pretty much anything. Please feel free though (irony) to pretend to be free.
It's becoming quite clear that governments will do "anything" to generate revenue. Requiring a license to perform some task (other than professional) is nothing more than a shake down of the public simply because they can.
I really wish they would license Internet use.
Mandating Licensing is the first step toward making a cabal. The second step is to limit the number of licenses to those who already possess them.
This is really more a restraint of trade issue than a free speech one.
I wish they would license bureaucrats for competence before they are promoted. There are three things about bureaucracy that are dominant:
Incompetence - surround yourself with idiots, they are great scapegoats (ask Obama)
Nepotism - my nephew needs a job and my sister keeps nagging me.
Blackmail - we need more money to hide our incompetence – it’s you turn to contribute by becoming licensed.
Post a Comment