License to Describe: Defeating Washington D.C.'s Tour Guide Licensing Scheme

[olga2415]

When I was tangling with the IRS in ct. , I contacted the Civil Liberties Union and it wanted for me to waive all my rights to my own case, in order for it to "represent" me. Can anyone say "no deal"? Good. Because that's what you should say if ever you think you need that org. It is not what it purports to be. No "institution" on the globe purporting to represent "The People" is what it purports to be.

[olga2415]

We each and every one of us should find some unlawful edict or statute among the millions in place and bring suit against the criminal enterprise that is running roughshod over our natural God given rights. I already filed against the IRS and WON a cancellation of the fake debt. I wish I could wave a magic wand and say "all together now, Go!" and millions of lawsuits would be aimed at the govt. , ie, NWO, ie U.S. govt. [which is a private corp. entity.]You have Nothing to fear but fear itself!

[trekleader]

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...

[shamgar001]

@trekleader If I want to hire an unlicensed lawyer, what right to you have to stand between us?

[tourguidedc]

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.

[Denon333dash888]

@tourguidedc I'd like to know how the test goes/went.

[45CaliberCure]

@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.

[voogru]

@tourguidedc How about we let the customers decide for themselves.

What a concept...

[VintageGibson]

"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.

[VintageGibson]

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."

[justamick]

Good luck, I cant speak for anyone else here, but I can tell you I stand behind you and your efforts 100%.

[cds44356]

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.

[ladell51]

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?"

[MacGirvan]

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!

[stefanvalsson]

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]

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.

[ClangHonkTweet]

@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.

[bilderberghunter]

this is bullshit, where are the rights that are so important to defend, let the constitution rule, enough with these scams

[Thill029]

licencing is just a method of taxation without calling it taxation.

[TXKafir]

The problem with business licensing is that the committees that issue the licenses are usually composed of or run by those already in that industry. In what bizarro world does it make sense to have to ask your potential competitors if you can join the market? This is crony capitalism at its worst.

[Thanos82]

@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.

[3martijns]

Reversal of Benefit: Every Increase in Government = More Decrease in Freedom.

Go Away Big Brother Brute!!

[1madmartagan1]

The power to tax is the power to destroy.

This is why the government does not tax churches. It assumed that if the government was able tax churches that this would destroy the independence of churches and religion, as the government could punish those churches which it did not approve of.

Similarly requiring tour guides to have a special license to be a tour guide is empowering the government to control the speech of those tour guides.

[InfraRedNeck]

“The American people will never knowingly adopt socialism. But, under the name of ‘liberalism,’ they will adopt every fragment of the socialist program, until one day America will be a socialist nation, without knowing how it happened.”

- Norman Thomas, U.S. Socialist Party presidential candidate 1940, 1944 and 1948

[InfraRedNeck]

“There’s no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren’t enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible to live without breaking laws.”

– Ayn Rand

[Thanos82]

From the video description the license is required if one is going to "give a tour of the city for compensation".

Want to exercise your free speech, then you need only do it for free. Want to charge for your free speech, well then you need a license.

[splat61]

@Thanos82 By that reasoning if you wanted to sell a book the government could require you to get a license first.

[Thanos82]

@splat61

Yes, it is called a business license. However you probably mean something more specific. Like, if one wanted to sell a mathematics textbook one would have to pass a knowledge test on mathematics first. Or, to get back to speech, perhaps a person who wants to be a teacher would have to pass a content examination first. Oh wait, they are.

[zenmervolt]

@Thanos82 Actually, no, they're not. I can open up a tutoring business without passing any examinations and I can write a textbook without passing any tests on the subject matter (witness the availability of creationist textbooks). Additionally, most states allow Private schools to hire teachers regardless of certification. In practical terms, the private schools tend to mandate that uncertified hires gain certification within 1-3 years, but that's not a restriction imposed by the government.

[Thanos82]

@zenmervolt

The question you posed was "could they" not "do they". I was answering could they require a specific thing in order to sell a "textbook". One can very well argue yes, in that a textbook has a fairly well defined purpose and the SCOTUS has already stated the government has a compelling interest in education. Could that go one to cover any book on mathematics, no it would be overly broad in covering more than the goals of such a hypothetical law. cont...

[Thanos82]

@zenmervolt

Re: Teachers In other words you've just demonstrated that one form of speech does not require the license where another does. You also said "most" states allow it. That would mean some do not allow private unlicensed teacher (DC does by the way). So "can" the government do so, the answer is yes they can. Let us assume it applied only to schools (priv or pub) and not tutoring, again an example of taxing one form of speech (TV licenses) but not another (newspapers licenses)

[zenmervolt]

@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...

[zenmervolt]

@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.

[IMissLiberty]

@Thanos82 So, does that mean stand-up comics must have a licence? Or news anchors? Or actors? Or novelists? Or politicians? All of them get paid for speech.

[Thanos82]

@IMissLiberty

It means they could be required to, not must. 1st) Is the law content neutral, does it apply to all tour guides regardless of what they want to say? Yes it does. What barriers is it really putting in place against free speech, none, only in front of economic activity. Just like any business license, or occupational license would.

[IMissLiberty]

@Thanos82 It is making speech more expensive, harming not only the tour guides, but their customers. The government has no right to tax speech.

[Thanos82]

@IMissLiberty

And yet they do. Licenses that apply only to radio stations, or to television stations, but not carnival barkers, newspaper publishers, or book sellers. Those could clearly be called a tax on the form of speech being given. Secondarily there is a difference between a tax being charged on the basis of something being a business rather than if it was, as some try to describe it, a tax just for having spoken.

[IMissLiberty]

@Thanos82 Of course, they tax anything that moves. Taxation is still theft. Broadcasters are being allowed to use certain frequencies to the exclusion of the rest of us; it is about preventing two users at the same time causing interference. Cable-only stations don't need a broadcast licence. If I stand on a public street corner and talk, it makes absolutely no difference whether I am working at the time for a business or talking to myself. Congress shall make no law restricting speech.

[Thanos82]

@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?

[IMissLiberty]

@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.

[Thanos82]

@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?

[astr0al3x]

@Thanos82 I don't understand the distinction you are making between doing something for profit and something for free. Most businesses in America have to apply for a permit to do business. What is the purpose of making this particular type of business have to apply for an additional license? The first ammendment does not make the distinction between speaking that is done for free and speaking that is done for profit. Free speech means being able to speak without getting approval from govt.

[Thanos82]

@astr0al3x

Actually it means more that the government cannot stop your speech without some compelling interest. However, the government is very much empowered to regulate commerce, even when commerece is speech based. As I previously mentioned some licenses only affect certain speech (radio TV). The only part of the law which to me seems may be found unconstitutional is the requirement for a test. cont...

[Thanos82]

@Thanos82

Where an ignorant doctor may cause irreparable harm which can't be addressed afterward, the damage from an ignorant tour guide is unlikely to. It can be addressed afterward. So, the test may be unconstitutional. What you choose to do, privately, is subject to less control by fed/state regulation than when you decide to make it commercial. If you choose to represent yourself in court it is one thing, if you wish to offer it as a service it is another.

[IMissLiberty]

@Thanos82 The Commerce clause means they are supposed to "make regular" commerce between the states. In other words, to ENCOURAGE commerce, not stifflle it. The idea was to stop the individual states from preventing imports and exports across their borders.

[Thanos82]

@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.

[Thanos82]

@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.

[vtcpdx]

I have always been a firm believer that unless you vigorously exercise your 2nd Ammnedment right, the rest of your rights will disappear...it appears I'm right. You can't argue against tyranny in the tyrant's courts. You need to blow the tyrant's fucking head off.

[MooseOfReason]

An unconstitutional law is no law at all.

[whoo689]

A LICENSE to walk around and tell tourists about various landmarks and attractions in your area????

It just keeps getting more ridiculous by the day. And I thought requiring licenses to make and sell caskets was weird...

[stretchyrubberbands]

This.. is simply absurd.

[rumco]

@stretchyrubberbands Welcome to democracy.

[vtcpdx]

@rumco This has nothing to do with democracy, it looks more like a republic gone mad.