PHILADELPHIA — In a courtroom just a block from Independence Hall — the heart of the city’s tourist district and the birthplace of the Constitution — a federal judge is weighing whether an ordinance to test and license local tour guides violates the First Amendment.
U.S. District Judge Jan DuBois, who heard arguments Friday, said it’s clear that both sides in the litigation want the city’s guides to be trustworthy and accurate. The question is whether the city is muzzling free speech by requiring guides to take an examination first.
DuBois deferred a ruling pending submission of additional briefs May 1.
Historical tourism is big business in Philadelphia, and lawyers for the city contend tour guides should have an occupational license similar to that of a real estate agent. But the plaintiffs — three tour guides — say the law unfairly restricts speech, could cause financial hardships and will not result in more accurate tours.
The Philadelphia City Council passed the ordinance last year hoping to ensure tourists aren’t misinformed by poorly trained guides who tell them Benjamin Franklin’s statue is atop City Hall. (It’s a statue of William Penn.) The ordinance requires guides to pay application fees, take a multiple-choice exam and obtain liability insurance, in case a visitor is injured.
Plaintiffs’ attorney Robert McNamara argued Friday that the tour guide industry differs from occupations in which someone’s words can affect a client’s health and safety, such as an attorney giving advice on a guilty plea, or a financial adviser talking about investments.
He also said that anyone who conveys information to someone else for compensation might need a license, like a math tutor or a law professor.
Deputy City Solicitor Elise Bruhl noted that guides will not be monitored once they are licensed, and they still are free to say anything they want.
"The tour guides are selling themselves as experts,” Bruhl said
by the associated press
U.S. District Judge Jan DuBois, who heard arguments Friday, said it’s clear that both sides in the litigation want the city’s guides to be trustworthy and accurate. The question is whether the city is muzzling free speech by requiring guides to take an examination first.
DuBois deferred a ruling pending submission of additional briefs May 1.
Historical tourism is big business in Philadelphia, and lawyers for the city contend tour guides should have an occupational license similar to that of a real estate agent. But the plaintiffs — three tour guides — say the law unfairly restricts speech, could cause financial hardships and will not result in more accurate tours.
The Philadelphia City Council passed the ordinance last year hoping to ensure tourists aren’t misinformed by poorly trained guides who tell them Benjamin Franklin’s statue is atop City Hall. (It’s a statue of William Penn.) The ordinance requires guides to pay application fees, take a multiple-choice exam and obtain liability insurance, in case a visitor is injured.
Plaintiffs’ attorney Robert McNamara argued Friday that the tour guide industry differs from occupations in which someone’s words can affect a client’s health and safety, such as an attorney giving advice on a guilty plea, or a financial adviser talking about investments.
He also said that anyone who conveys information to someone else for compensation might need a license, like a math tutor or a law professor.
Deputy City Solicitor Elise Bruhl noted that guides will not be monitored once they are licensed, and they still are free to say anything they want.
"The tour guides are selling themselves as experts,” Bruhl said
by the associated press
