tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28102666.post7508164261294717833..comments2024-03-28T04:26:30.557-05:00Comments on Boston 1775: The Legalities of Licensing Historical Tour GuidesUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28102666.post-26863744654402484692015-02-06T10:09:14.445-05:002015-02-06T10:09:14.445-05:00I'm a liberal but I agree with the libertarian...I'm a liberal but I agree with the libertarians here. I hate to argue the slippery slope, but open dialogue is essential to doing good history.<br /><br />However, while I'm against licencing, I am okay with the idea of certification. If you allowed tour guides to test for an optional certification they could use to attract customers you wouldn't be prohibiting un-certified tour guides from giving tours. <br /><br />PS- We all know Gary Gregory from the picture would pass any test they could come up with :)Daud Alzayerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00159094499713375760noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28102666.post-74382088218305887802015-02-03T16:20:18.762-05:002015-02-03T16:20:18.762-05:00License a tour guide? Does that mean only governm...License a tour guide? Does that mean only government-approved "history" is allowed?<br /><br />As an attorney and one who grew up in the "Old South" (now live in Boston), I can imagine what the guide exam would have looked like in 1950s or 60s Charleston, S.C.Jerrynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28102666.post-4577657159107085422015-02-03T13:28:27.802-05:002015-02-03T13:28:27.802-05:00I guess I don't understand why the courts or g...I guess I don't understand why the courts or government need to get involved in a job description. No matter what job you take, it has its requirements. Of course you need to have the proper skills and knowledge to do a particular job. That's a no brainer. Would you be hired to be an accountant if you had no skills in tax laws and accounting procedures? Nope. So why the problem in the case of historical tour guides?Cactusneedlehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13063893333954556967noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28102666.post-2373912328132886642015-02-03T13:23:48.489-05:002015-02-03T13:23:48.489-05:00"Any dramatization has to be analyzed as a re..."Any dramatization has to be analyzed as a representation of the past designed to appeal to the dramatic sensibilities of its first audience." Well said sir, indeed well said. <br />Upon the recent episode in which an historic reporting organization has foolishly presented a fabrication of our insurrection of 1763 to 1775, and some less-well informed citizens seem to believe as fact; there is a problem. Our heritage needs to be safeguarded from inaccurate interpretations / personal opinion, to the public as fact will only escalate a problem which is growing. Yet, there is that feeing should government, be it local or State, get involved it is a financial question as-well. YES, historical interpretations to the general public should be somehow monitored. YES, there would be a need to have some form of identification of a sanctioned historical living history interpreter that the general public could recognized as bonafide. The Freedom Trail Foundation has it well covered up to a point. Btw (Thank you to the F.T.F. for its good work and good people!)<br />Note: Wait until some 25 year old guy with an unshaven appearance wearing a leather vest with two pistols stuck in his belt starts running around Boston giving tours as Samuel Adams. Then you’ll see the problem. <br />Committee of Correspondencehttp://committeeofcorresp.wix.com/10-aug-2014noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28102666.post-83363278166267918992015-02-03T11:24:31.708-05:002015-02-03T11:24:31.708-05:00My point was not so much as to whether the History...My point was not so much as to whether the History Channel would be subject to some sort of standards (judging from I have seen, they have absolutely none), but that the reasoning that would allow municipalities to require standards for tour guides opens up whole areas for regulation that previously had been considered off-limits. I certainly would not support any "standards" for the History Channel, I think it would be totally inconsistent with the First Amendment, but I do think that the Supreme Court, if they accept this case, has to wrestle with the rather important constitutional questions it highlights. And I am not so sure that they will side with the municipalities.EJWitekhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05796418061787943596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28102666.post-87315765776130985812015-02-03T11:18:25.750-05:002015-02-03T11:18:25.750-05:00I'm loathe to impinge on anyone's free spe...I'm loathe to impinge on anyone's free speech right to spout absolute nonsense, no matter how high it raises my blood pressure, and the notion of government sanctioned information is even more abhorrent.<br /><br />How about a loose confederation of local historians, professionals and amateurs stepping up to quiz self identified guides (over beers in a pub is fine) and giving those who can demonstrate at least a minimum of knowledge their imprimatur that they can use to tout their services?<br /><br />I hereby nominate J.L. Bell, or his assigns, to head up what I suggest he call the "Committee of Correspondents" (as in corresponding with facts not baloney).G. Lovelynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28102666.post-75183135059092386462015-02-03T10:40:30.528-05:002015-02-03T10:40:30.528-05:00As a cable-television channel, the History Channel...As a cable-television channel, the History Channel is not subject to the same F.C.C. rules as broadcast networks. I think there's a possible argument that its use of satellite transmission means it could be subject to some regulations for the public good, but overall the F.C.C. has cut back so much on media companies as long as they don't knowingly broadcast profanity that we'll never see that idea tested. <br /><br />In any event, my argument above is that municipalities could set up a system to certify some sources of historical information as accurate, but not prevent others from promulgating their own stories or views. So the parallel is that a government could have a system to endorse some television miniseries (e.g., <i>John Adams</i>) and not others (e.g., <i>Sons of Liberty</i>), but the latter could still be shown.<br /><br />One question is whether history teachers will end up basically producing that result through what videos they choose to show in classrooms. <br /><br />(I should note that I spotted a lot of historical inaccuracies in <i>John Adams</i> and wrote about them on this site. Any dramatization has to be analyzed as a representation of the past designed to appeal to the dramatic sensibilities of its first audience.)J. L. Bellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15405157000473731801noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28102666.post-81146195530897971872015-02-03T09:43:20.118-05:002015-02-03T09:43:20.118-05:00If a municipality can demand that historical tour ...If a municipality can demand that historical tour guides meet "certain standards for historical accuracy", under that same reasoning, couldn't the FCC require that the writers and producers of the History Channel's "Sons of Liberty" meet those same standards? After all, the History Channel broadcasts on public airwaves under license.EJWitekhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05796418061787943596noreply@blogger.com