The First Amendment Protects the Right to Work as a Tour Guide, Says Federal Judge
A Savannah, Georgia, law that required testing and licensing of tour guides is found unconstitutional.

Telling stories for money should not require a government test and license in a country with a First Amendment, a federal judge in Georgia has ruled. The decision came as a result of a lawsuit challenging Savannah, Georgia's past attempts to force tour guides to pay fees, pass tests, and get licenses before taking people around the city and saying things to them.
Judge William T. Moore, Jr. of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Georgia, in his decision in Freenor v. Mayor and Aldermen of the City of Savannah, issued yesterday, concluded that the city had offered no reasonable justifications for its tour guide licensing scheme.
Savannah actually repealed the challenged law back in 2015, after the Institute for Justice (I.J.) filed this suit in 2014, but the case was not mooted by the law's repeal since the suing tour guides and would-be tour guides also sought compensatory damages for harms that the law caused when it still existed.
A press release from I.J. spells out the pointlessness of the unconstitutional requirements which Savannah first put in place in 1978: "Tour guides who wanted this storytelling license had to pass a hundred-question multiple choice exam on Savannah history—even if they had no interest in discussing history on their tours. For instance, some tour guides focus on art and architecture or tell ghost stories." Along with the written test, licensed tour guides also needed to pass a criminal background check and to provide notes from licensed physicians certifying their fitness to work as tour guides.
I.J. celebrates that this week's Georgia decision continues a national trend toward squashing these sorts of unconstitutional occupational licensing laws:
Federal courts in Washington, D.C., and Charleston, South Carolina, have also struck down guide licenses in those cities in response to IJ litigation, and late last year Williamsburg, Virginia, repealed a similar licensing requirement to avoid a lawsuit. Only one similar licensing law—in New Orleans, Louisiana—has ever been upheld by a federal court.
Judge Moore found that the city's claims of any threat to the safety or enjoyment of tourists from improperly tested tour guides were not proven, nor were any provable harms prevented by a criminal background check that was also part of the tour guide licensing scheme. "Ultimately, a handful of anecdotes is not sufficient to sustain the city's burden to demonstrate that the tour guide licensing scheme actually serves its interests," Moore wrote.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
There seems to be more and more interestingly militant First Amendment jurisprudence going on like this. I can't imagine this kind of result 20 years ago, let alone 100. OTOH, I can't imagine any city 100 years ago thinking they should license tour guides who tell ghost stories.
Still, I wonder how far the courts will push this. Maybe some of what they've forgotten about economic freedom can be restored via freedom of speech.
If only they would recognize a right to free association too. I mean, why else would people bother to assemble? How else would they pursue happiness or exercise liberty? Are we not social creatures?
Hopefully the lamentable tendency of some to push the claimed "social rights" of American citizens too far (this latest case is a good example of that) will soon be reversed. The state has as much right to lay down what type of tour-guide speech is appropriate and legal, as it has to decide what kind of "parody" is acceptable. Much of what untrained and unlicensed tour guides say can be very damaging to the reputational interests of certain well-connected members of the community. In this regard, see the documentation of our nation's leading criminal "satire" case at:
https://raphaelgolbtrial.wordpress.com/
Actually, the testing was intended to keep Yankees out of jobs in Savannah.
They weren't too keen on the "William T. Sherman Makes Present of City to Lincoln" tour?
That is a very short tour when guided by a native of the city.
I'm still not allowed to give NSA tours.
GO IJ! GO IJ! GO IJ!
Those guys ROCK!
Is the free market providing an alternative to the ACLU now that the ACLU doesn't care about non-progressive rights?
Georgia needs more immigration.
With the internet I imagine the bad ones get weeded out pretty quick.
And that's the whole point. Good tour guides are the ones that make it interesting and often point out places of violence, corruption, crime and racism. City officials would like a sanitized tour of the city and that's usually no fun but that would be their idea of good. Have you ever gone on tour with US Park Ranger tour guide who stuck to the script? If so, you know what I'm talking about.
You know where else they license tour guides? In Havana, the capital of Communist Cuba, that's where.
[…] Institute for Justice win against occupational licensing, this time as it concerns Savannah, Georgia, tour […]
[…] Institute for Justice win against occupational licensing, this time as it concerns Savannah, Georgia, tour […]
[…] Institute for Justice win against occupational licensing, this time as it concerns Savannah, Georgia, tour […]