On Tuesday the Institute for Justice went to federal court to find out.

Two years ago IJ teamed up with three Philadelphia tour guides to file a major First Amendment lawsuit seeking to vindicate the freedom to speak in Philadelphia.

Ann Boulais, Mike Tait and Josh Silver sued because officials passed a law making it illegal for anyone like them to give a tour of much of the city’s downtown area without first passing a test and obtaining a government license—that is, getting the government’s permission to speak.

The case immediately sparked nationwide interest.  Robert McNamara, the First Amendment expert who filed the case, appeared on shows like All Things Considered and Marketplace to point out that the Constitution protects our right to communicate for a living, whether we are speaking out as bloggers, journalists, stand-up comedians or tour guides.

The Wall Street Journal ran a front-page feature:

Feeling tyrannized, Ms. [Ann] Boulais and two fellow guides summoned the constitution’s protections by suing the city in Philadelphia Federal court. The history test, they claimed, breached the Bill of Rights — a set of rules, as any good guide should know, that took effect while Congress sat here at 6th and Chestnut streets, on Dec. 15, 1791.

Of course, the guides are quick to point out that officials are violating fundamental American liberties in the very place those liberties were first enshrined in our Constitution.

In 2009, a year after the suit was filed, the city asked a federal judge to dismiss the case.  Their reason?  They had not allocated money in their 2009 budget to enforce the law right away.

(more…)

Nationwide, government at every level is requiring more and more of the workforce to get its permission just to earn a living.

In the 1950s, only about 5 percent of the workforce needed a government license to do their job. Today, that number is over 30 percent.  And governments impose all kinds of other requirements that make it hard for would-be entrepreneurs to start and grow small businesses.

Entrepreneurs like Chuck, here:

Unemployment in the United States has now topped 9.5 percent for 14 straight months—the longest stretch since the Great Depression.  Nearly 14.8 million people were unemployed last month.

Consider the nation’s capital.

Year after year, Washington, D.C., is ranked the worst place in the United States to start a small business. How can the District change its ways to allow entrepreneurs to create more jobs and opportunity?

(more…)

Most of you know Jon David from his famous Big Hollywood “My Date With a Liberal” series that debuted not long after the site launched. After the Tea Party movement caught fire, so did Jon’s “American Heart,” which also had its premiere right here.

My congratulations to our friend Mr. Kahn who set an example for all of us with his willingness to throw off those shades and fight the good fight. There are right-of-center “sleeper agents” like Jon all over Hollywood. He is not alone. And when others throw off the shades and declare themselves the movement to reclaim a piece of the Hollywood/pop culture pie for pro-American and pro-liberty ideas and ideals can only grow stronger.

Jon is proof that you are not alone. It’s time to activate yourselves. Join the fight.

Or, as Robert Davi memorably put it, “After all we’re only talking about saving our country.”

The Wall Street Journal:

During the campaign in 2008, President Obama made his tax message as clear as it could be: he wanted to tax the wealthy, and help the poor. He promised over and over that taxes on those making less than $250,000 would not go up. So why has the president proposed a health care tax on the poor?

A frequent line by candidate Obama in his stump speeches during the election went something like this:

“Let me be absolutely clear. If you are a family making less than $250,000 a year, you will not see your taxes go up.”

Despite this promise, we’ve already had the federal tax hike on cigarettes to fund children’s health care (S-CHIP), an excise tax that impacts the poor profoundly more than the wealthy because of the inverse relationship between smoking and income.

(more…)