Free Speech or True History - Whateevr that is...

[OldGreyEagle 5]

from the paper today

 

http://www.mcall.com/news/nationworld/state/all-a5_tourguides.6488500jul03,0,1404041.story

 

Three Philly tour guides sue over testing law

They say it's a free speech issue in city of independence.

By Patrick Walters | Of The Associated Press

July 3, 2008

 

Citing their free speech rights, three tour guides filed a lawsuit Wednesday challenging an ordinance that will require them to pass a history test and get a license before speaking to groups about the history of the Liberty Bell, Independence Hall and other landmarks.

Mayor Michael Nutter signed the law in April amid concerns some guides were perpetuating gross inaccuracies, including the false claims that Benjamin Franklin had 69 illegitimate children and that three-time widow Betsy Ross killed her husbands.

But the guides, backed by a public-interest law firm, argue the city has gone too far and want the law overruled. They say their constitutional rights are being violated in the very city where the Declaration of Independence was adopted 232 years ago.

''Mistakes happen everywhere,'' said Robert McNamara, attorney for the Institute of Justice, which filed the suit. ''But just because mistakes occasionally happen doesn't mean the government can license who can talk. People have the right to decide who they want to listen to.''

City officials say they are trying to protect the very history that brings millions of tourists to Philadelphia and generates billions of dollars in revenue every year. They don't want anyone leaving town believing that it is Ben Franklin atop City Hall (it's William Penn) or that homes were once taxed based on how wide they were.

''Tourism is a major part of our local economy,'' said Douglas Oliver, a spokesman for the mayor. ''It is reasonable to ensure that tourists are getting accurate information.''

The tests are to be required beginning in October. Washington, New Orleans and Charleston, S.C., have similar laws regulating tour guides. The suit is the first to challenge such tour guide regulations, McNamara said.

Ann Boulais, one of the tour guide plaintiffs, said it is not a government's place to regulate what private people say on public streets. She said she would take a certification test at the behest of the tour guide's council, but not the city.

''My concern is, where does it end?'' said Boulais, 49, who has been giving tours for five years. ''Are you now going to license a stand-up comedian to see if he's funny?''

Oliver noted that the law applies to people who are getting paid to give tours, not to people such as volunteers or teachers or people giving tours on private property.

But the tour guides say they can police themselves -- and want the city to stay out of it.

 

Michael Tait, another guide represented in the suit, said he is always careful to tell his tours when something is folklore and when it is fact. He often addresses the tale that Betsy Ross sewed the first American flag, explaining that it is folklore and that there is no proof.

 

Some guides do tell ''whoppers'' -- such as Franklin being the statue on top of City Hall. But Josh Silver, the third guide in the suit, says most are accurate, if not perfect.

 

''I simply qualify my comments and speak with honesty,'' Silver said. ''Certainly, I've made mistakes. I'm sure everybody has.''

 

 

So. should those who give historical tours have to pass a test on whether or not they know their history? And even if they do pass the test, what keeps them from telling historical innacuracies and since history is written by the winners, what do we use as criteria? Is there proof Ben fathered that many children and Betsy Ross seems to be one up on Lizzie Borden (who was acquitted you know)

 

How does Free Speech mesh with historical tours?

 

[GernBlansten 10]

Your right to free speech ends when someone is paying you to speak for them. If these guides want to propagate their stories, they are free to do so on their own time and nobody should squelch it, that would be protected speech. However, if they are paid or even volunteering to be a representative of the organization, they must deliver the material as intended by the organization. The organization gets to set what is said, not the guide.

[John-in-KC 311]

Who do they guide for? The city? In that case, I'd be OK with them presenting a script. Accurate representation of information can be a condition of employment.

 

OTOH, if they guide for Coach USA or Gray Line Tours, city be hanged, especially if the guides are paying to enter the turnstile as well.

[evmori 11]

Sounds like a requirement for employment to me!

[OldGreyEagle 5]

But say an organization, legally formed and with all appropriate licenses wants to start a "true history" tour. One that asserts that Ben Franklin was cheated out of a chance to be the first president by a wily and cunningly deceitful George Washington? That the flag that Betsy Ross sewed was a symbol, the stripes representing a prison, the stars representing women enslaved by the tyranny of a male dominated society that counted women as chattal.

 

What about George Washington's refusal to continue public life? He went back to Mount Vernon when some would have made him King, he refused because Thomas Jefferson had some incriminating wood etchings. If this was the story an organization wanted to tell, should it be allowed to?

[Merlyn_LeRoy 72]

An article by the plaintiff's attorney is here:

http://www.ij.org/first_amendment/pa_tour_guides/7_2_08pr.html

 

I don't know if this would fly as a straight first amendment argument; presumably, people paying tour guides to tell them information are expecting reasonably accurate information for their money, and not just entertaining lies.

[Rooster7 11]

GB,

 

I think you're making the assumption that the city of Philadelphia hired the guides. That's probably not the case. If the city did hire them, then of course they have a right to impose a standard. In fact, I don't think there would be a law suit. The city could simply fire them for being inadequate for the job.

 

However, in this story, I believe it's being reported that the city is requiring any person for hire to pass a history test, including independent contractors (like a horse and carriage guide). That being the case, I adamantly oppose this new law. It is an infringement on free speech. The city of Philadelphia has no right to force others to embrace their perceptions of historical accuracy.

 

If this law is allowed to stand, then it will set a very dangerous precedent. All sorts of lines will become blurred and we could lose many of the freedoms that we enjoy today.

 

[GernBlansten 10]

I can see your arguement. However, if these independant contractors are licensed by the city to provide services, they must meet safety and other standards to operate a business. Having trained guides would be a logical extension to that.

[John-in-KC 311]

From the article cited above:

 

"The new law makes it illegal to give a tour for compensation of the citys main tourist area without first submitting a written application, paying a fee, providing proof of insurance and passing a written examination in order to be granted a license to tour. The program will be administered and the test developed by an administrative agency to be named by the mayors office. No test has been made public."

 

emphasis added

 

This will be fun! I guess the question is how much of a burden does this impose, and what are the consequences to not pass the test?

[GernBlansten 10]

I would assume the consequences would be the same if you gave a compensated tour without proper insurance. A fine and a cease and desist order.

[Merlyn_LeRoy 72]

Here's the law itself:

http://webapps.phila.gov/council/attachments/5141.pdf

 

There doesn't seem to be any connection between passing the test vs. what the tour guide says on tours. That is, you could get certified by passing the test, but there's no requirement that, when giving tours, that you don't tell entertaining lies instead.

 

I think this law would have a much better chance of surviving a challenge if it removed any penalties; just have a method to certify tour guides, but if a tour guide isn't certified, they just aren't certified.

[Rooster7 11]

There have always been disagreements about what occurred in the past. All of human history can and has been a source of debate. Its not our governments job to control what can be publicly stated and promoted as historical truth. If there is a dispute and someone suffers damages, I have no problem with the government acting as an arbitrator (i.e. preside over a civil suit), but they should never regulate our speech.

 

This is such a slippery slope. The next step will be to regulate historical accuracy in private schoolsthen home schools...then homes. Eventually well be told that we have all the freedom we want to practice religionwe just cant teach it as truth. And if that doesnt bother you, the next step will be to regulate what political candidates can say.

 

The solution to the Philly problem is simple And its the same solution for all of America Let the buyer beware. Were all big boys and girls, and if we want our freedoms, we should tolerant some dissent whether it be rooted in ignorance or politics thats a small price to pay given the alternative.

 

GB,

 

Laws/regulations imposed for safety reasons do not tend to trample on our Constitutional rights (unless theres some hidden agenda like protestors on the public sidewalk with signs may cause patrons to trip).

 

Merlyn,

 

Penalties or not, when did our government gain the Constitutional ability to regulate what we (the public) believe to be true whether it be history or religion or anything else?

 

[Merlyn_LeRoy 72]

Rooster7, are you against the government deciding which schools receive accredation? Schools that teach nonsense can still exist, but their diplomas won't help anyone get into college.

[Rooster7 11]

Merlyn,

 

I'm against the government telling schools what they can teach. And yes, I'm against the government deciding what schools receive accreditation. Employers will figure out in short order which schools they like or dislike, with or without the government providing accreditation. And likewise, that information (what schools employers like or dislike) will become public knowledge quickly. The accreditation process serves no real purpose but to provide the government with another vehicle of controlanother governmental power which can be abused and leveraged to someones personal and/or ideological advantage.

[OldGreyEagle 5]

"...but their diplomas won't help anyone get into college"

 

Around some parts they are known as the Public School System ::shudder::