5 ms·

Looking at the text of the fine, you can't charge money to teach people things ("offer education" in their parlence) in a physical location without state approv

Looking at the text of the fine, you can't charge money to teach people things ("offer education" in their parlence) in a physical location without state approval. Could that be any more broad? Education is often just verbal and written communication between people. Seems like a first amendment violation.

gruez 7y ago
>you can't charge money to teach people things [...] >Seems like a first amendment violation. The key phrase here is charging money. Commercial speech has always been more strictly regulated than other forms of speech.
- nokcha 7y ago
  "Commercial speech" refers to advertising, or more precisely, speech that "proposes a commercial transaction". It does not refer to speech that is charged for. Newspapers and books are fully protected by the First Amendment even though people pay for them.
  - charrondev 7y ago
    Isn’t there specific wording for the press? > Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. It clearly distinguishes the press as different from speech, but teaching someone certainly seems like it would fall under normal speech.
  - thaumasiotes 7y ago
    > "Commercial speech" refers to advertising, or more precisely, speech that "proposes a commercial transaction". It does not refer to speech that is charged for. Unfortunately, there is a received "professional speech" semi-exception to the First Amendment, explaining things like how there can be laws against charging money for legal advice (pure speech) without a state license. I assume that's what California is thinking here.
- dragonwriter 7y ago
  This isn't a regulation of commercial speech but a regulation of commerce where part of what is traded might be speech. Of course, the government can do that fairly broadly, too. The government can often regulate selling things in ways that it could not Constitutionally regulate the thing being sold outside of commerce.
asyujilo 7y ago
So would private tutoring be technically illegal in CA?
- randyrand 7y ago
  If you have a physical location and don't have state approval, yes.
  - thaumasiotes 7y ago
    All private tutoring in California involves a physical presence in the state by necessity, so you can shorten this answer to "yes".
    - Alupis 7y ago
      I think it means a physical location for the business, ie. a brick and mortar store location - such as those "A+ Tutoring" or similar tutoring businesses common in major shopping centers.
      - thaumasiotes 7y ago
        If you're a sole proprietor who comes to students' homes, you're going to pass every legal test of "physical presence in California". Note that Lambda School's lawyer interpreted the law the same way you'd like to -- Lambda School doesn't have a physical presence in California because it doesn't operate any classrooms. But the state felt differently. And the state is pretty unambiguously correct on this point -- Lambda School is apparently incorporated in California as Lambda Inc. with a business address of 921 Crescent Court, San Ramon, CA 94582. ( https://www.bloomberg.com/profile/company/1574959D:US https://www.bloomberg.com/profile/company/1574959D:US ) Fascinatingly, they seem to have been incorporated in 1983.
        austenallred 7y ago
        Pretty sure that information is wrong, because I was born in 1989...
dragonwriter 7y ago
> Looking at the text of the fine, you can't charge money to teach people things ("offer education" in their parlence) in a physical location without state approval. It looks like you ignored a lot of the text of the order, such as the citation of exemptions, and the limiting qualifier “postsecondsry” before education. > Could that be any more broad? Well, no, it would be harder for it to be more broad than your mischaracterization. > Seems like a first amendment violation. Probably not even if it was as broad as you mischaracterize it. The first amendment does not prevent the State from general regulation of commerce, even if what is being traded is speech.
- macinjosh 7y ago
  You're so called 'limiting qualifier' describes literally everyone who has graduated high school. If I got on the bad side of the government and they wanted to throw the book at me I could be fined for giving guitar lessons to my neighbor.
  - dragonwriter 7y ago
    > You're so called 'limiting qualifier' describes literally everyone who has graduated high school. If I got on the bad side of the government and they wanted to throw the book at me I could be fined for giving guitar lessons to my neighbor. No, the applicable legal definition of “postsecondary education” is not as broad as you are painting it: I've directly quoted it, with citation to the Education Code, in another subthread: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20559878 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20559878
- randyrand 7y ago
  Ah you're right that I missed postsecondary. It should be: >Looking at the text of the fine, you can't charge money to teach adults things in a cirriculum ("offer education" in their parlence) in a physical location without state approval. It's an important distinction, but I don't think that huge game changer. Still looks clearly unconstitutional. I could literally rent a storefront and recite audio books and that would be illegal. How is that a constitutional law? Note: educational books often have a curriculum built in. The difference between a book and a class is just the medium it's presented. Limiting the spread of information is what dictatorships do. There is a reason it's the very first amendment.

gruez 7y ago

>you can't charge money to teach people things [...] >Seems like a first amendment violation. The key phrase here is charging money. Commercial speech has always been more strictly regulated than other forms of speech.

nokcha 7y ago
"Commercial speech" refers to advertising, or more precisely, speech that "proposes a commercial transaction". It does not refer to speech that is charged for. Newspapers and books are fully protected by the First Amendment even though people pay for them.
- charrondev 7y ago
  Isn’t there specific wording for the press? > Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. It clearly distinguishes the press as different from speech, but teaching someone certainly seems like it would fall under normal speech.
- thaumasiotes 7y ago
  > "Commercial speech" refers to advertising, or more precisely, speech that "proposes a commercial transaction". It does not refer to speech that is charged for. Unfortunately, there is a received "professional speech" semi-exception to the First Amendment, explaining things like how there can be laws against charging money for legal advice (pure speech) without a state license. I assume that's what California is thinking here.
dragonwriter 7y ago
This isn't a regulation of commercial speech but a regulation of commerce where part of what is traded might be speech. Of course, the government can do that fairly broadly, too. The government can often regulate selling things in ways that it could not Constitutionally regulate the thing being sold outside of commerce.

asyujilo 7y ago

So would private tutoring be technically illegal in CA?

randyrand 7y ago
If you have a physical location and don't have state approval, yes.
- thaumasiotes 7y ago
  All private tutoring in California involves a physical presence in the state by necessity, so you can shorten this answer to "yes".
  - Alupis 7y ago
    I think it means a physical location for the business, ie. a brick and mortar store location - such as those "A+ Tutoring" or similar tutoring businesses common in major shopping centers.
    - thaumasiotes 7y ago
      If you're a sole proprietor who comes to students' homes, you're going to pass every legal test of "physical presence in California". Note that Lambda School's lawyer interpreted the law the same way you'd like to -- Lambda School doesn't have a physical presence in California because it doesn't operate any classrooms. But the state felt differently. And the state is pretty unambiguously correct on this point -- Lambda School is apparently incorporated in California as Lambda Inc. with a business address of 921 Crescent Court, San Ramon, CA 94582. ( https://www.bloomberg.com/profile/company/1574959D:US https://www.bloomberg.com/profile/company/1574959D:US ) Fascinatingly, they seem to have been incorporated in 1983.
      - austenallred 7y ago
        Pretty sure that information is wrong, because I was born in 1989...

dragonwriter 7y ago

> Looking at the text of the fine, you can't charge money to teach people things ("offer education" in their parlence) in a physical location without state approval. It looks like you ignored a lot of the text of the order, such as the citation of exemptions, and the limiting qualifier “postsecondsry” before education. > Could that be any more broad? Well, no, it would be harder for it to be more broad than your mischaracterization. > Seems like a first amendment violation. Probably not even if it was as broad as you mischaracterize it. The first amendment does not prevent the State from general regulation of commerce, even if what is being traded is speech.

macinjosh 7y ago
You're so called 'limiting qualifier' describes literally everyone who has graduated high school. If I got on the bad side of the government and they wanted to throw the book at me I could be fined for giving guitar lessons to my neighbor.
- dragonwriter 7y ago
  > You're so called 'limiting qualifier' describes literally everyone who has graduated high school. If I got on the bad side of the government and they wanted to throw the book at me I could be fined for giving guitar lessons to my neighbor. No, the applicable legal definition of “postsecondary education” is not as broad as you are painting it: I've directly quoted it, with citation to the Education Code, in another subthread: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20559878 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20559878
randyrand 7y ago
Ah you're right that I missed postsecondary. It should be: >Looking at the text of the fine, you can't charge money to teach adults things in a cirriculum ("offer education" in their parlence) in a physical location without state approval. It's an important distinction, but I don't think that huge game changer. Still looks clearly unconstitutional. I could literally rent a storefront and recite audio books and that would be illegal. How is that a constitutional law? Note: educational books often have a curriculum built in. The difference between a book and a class is just the medium it's presented. Limiting the spread of information is what dictatorships do. There is a reason it's the very first amendment.