point i want to underscore i guess something that maybe it is unique about the nature of god services in what they are because a  important interest in both protecting and promoting its by the tourism economy as you say it's not a regulation of speech wherein the tour is given doesn't the conditions under which the guys can conduct the tour doesn't that amount to some regulation of speech i'm not saying that that automatically incidental your honor to be its to its commercial purpose and well that's nodding that's not quite true based on the criteria that r p m and post it seems to me that not every citizen can stand up and say i'll give you a tour of charleston they have to comply with the regulation which requires that they learn certain content and the license is conditioned on their mastery to a certain level of that context so it's it it seems to me that not every person can stand up and say that even though they may be the best professor at the nearby university who knows the details of the history that person still can go and speak to persons in the public about the details of what's been viewed they have to get a license and it may be  license it's very appropriate for a lot of reasons but i think the fundamental question that has been presented in this case is whether that learning of five hundred page manual and giving of speech and other words if i speak to my family and tell them this is monica cello and it's the home of thomas jefferson and so forth i'm giving a speech now i can do that to my family ah so but is in south carolina could i do that to ten citizens who i know or ten citizens who i just solicit through my club to give a tour and the answer is you regulate that which is why i think there are a lot of good reasons for regulation and you guys have money in the criminal backgrounds and representation and commercial development of the city and all this but the question really raised in this case is not focusing on those aspects to question this case is focusing on the regulation of what these people can say based on being qualified  by the criteria that are imposed if you want to very quickly you certainly could as could anyone else so long as we're not talking about being paid for it so that that is one very important distinction here in terms of this is about hired guiding and again it's not hired speech because again the one and i'll move on from this to talk more about the intermediate scrutiny analysis but i do want to make the point that it may be a let me liken this to an interpreter but that's only fair enough that's all fair enough but the initial question you started off with which was somewhat provocative is that this does not regulate speech and it seems to me the center point of turning is speaking and  i have a hard time with that argument and it places a barrier on your further argument so i think because i think we clearly have a regulation of giving tours and some aspects of giving tours are not speech related that are related to other fraud and all kinds of other things but there are most of the aspects of giving tours is speech and in this case that aspect is regulated  by the various criteria that are being challenged of charlestown conveyed those may be substantial state interest but i'm wondering if you have tried other means of promoting the first four hundred and eighty three pages four hundred and fifty three pages that sounds like a lot of  there all the cities i think that have tried other alternatives eleven alternative that struck me as potentially promising to pass this particular test or any test to wear some button or uniform or insignia should have a button or you have a particular uniform or you're going to have an insignia showing an advanced certification although we're going to is not a professional service one of the things that strikes me when i go into a doctor's office is wn that point again and i was sure tries what you want but it would be effective and that is and that is the point now we've got to speak in terms of on this record we do have testimony from for instance mayor riley  judge norton he really equated this voluntary concept with nothing more or it in his view indistinguishable from simply relying on market forces and if the court will indulge me just a moment this is just a couple lines but he addresses both these things one fell and he continues to say that to the extent plan suggested that he relied on a private organization to establish a voluntary service cation program the core consider such a suggestion indistinguishable from alonso market forces officially that's what it is you dish of quality reliability and society i submitted to to make that argument is to make the city's point is that that it does matter it isn't the furtherance of promotion and protecting the tourism business in charleston a government interest which justifies the regulation of tourist guides and i think you make that case myself but what troubles me is the breadth of  regulation and the for instance if you had a michelin star chef who said i know rex restaurants in charleston and i give tours of the various restaurants talking about their menus talking about people who have a parrot and he advertises that this is a restaurant tour well he can't get a license because in order for him to get a license he has to learn about the two thousand buildings and the architecture and the history none of which interests him and none of which he's promoting so the question would be could he'd not simply advertise it as a restaurant guide he wouldn't have the certification and the city could certainly promote higher guides who are certified by the city that would get around fast and then those certified persons will have a higher level of competence in the general facts about charleston i'm not sure it should be as broad as your car so i've done it i mean you have actually failed people who are pretty sound like they're pretty good but they couldn't pass the test because of the of the huge manual they had to learn that's another issue it seems to me but the real question is how broad do you have to go to serve the interests that you have and i think you need not demonstrate that you have an interest i think you have to demonstrate how what you're doing serves those interests naturally i think and that would be consistent with that reynolds that we were called reynolds what the yes that's exactly as i understand the course question let me say this about reynolds and maybe a more technical argument when we're talking about review of the record on  considered but i want to make sure that he in in his order he refers to post hoc justification for for the law and as i understand it the judge is clearly think that his hand was forced not because of the evidence that this presented was found wanting on whether or not it was nearly tailored but when that evidence when in time that evidence came from being what he called a post hoc justification he's not saying it's not justified he thinks post hoc and that's the necessarily adopt an alternative but it seems to me rose doesn't require that you seriously consider less restrictive speculation and in the sense that we've always done it this way so good is the only way i wondered what's the problem with looking into it a little bit more seriously to say here is something good somewhere even can protect all things interesting and presenting itself as a place really of on parallel of beauty and historical interest substantial interest here but i just wonder if your pride to find a way to preserve those values but you are again forced trying it terms implementing it were forced to say no framework of the law here when he recognizes this whole idea of less restrictive alternatives presupposes that they both readily available would be at least as effective as the challenge regulation in his order and this is not  went to trial the judge specifically identified in his order the nine summary judgment the city has presented evidence that each of the plaintiffs alternative proposals would be either impracticable or less effective than the current current licensing regime so  a question about i mean the evidence is there and there is there is every indication that in in the judge's order that the actual judge who was making these determinations is that he will because of the timing  of have not considered or tried or these considered alternatives prior to the uniting of this law over thirty years ago and he did it on the basis of the case that came down in two thousand and fifteen and the judge was  restrictive means bug but but less restrictive many and so i gather from your comments that intermediate scrutiny might be a way to approach this problem and preserve the barriers you're talking about place heretofore a lot of it is just dismissing the alternatives out of hand and some of them do deserve to be dismissed out of hand but only show or greater promise of that strict scrutiny doesn't just apply to regulations of political speech because just a few examples from recent years the supreme court is applied strict scrutiny to regulations of violent video games in the entertainment merchants case it is said strict society where is this seems to be focused mostly on the commercial interests of charleston and the promotion of the city and keeping its image and it seems to me that that commercial aspect provides a material distinction between the case you cite the strict scrutiny and some level of intermediate scrutiny your honor we agree that there is a commercial dimension here in the sense that the tourguide speech is sold for money but that was true of all of it's not ok so it's all money but the object of the city is mercenary promote the city it's interested in promoting a particular content it's interested and obtaining a commercially desirable result for the city for the economic benefit of the city it seems to me while there may  charleston's saying anything they want to the city has an interest to promote itself and have people come and it's a very important interest economically i'm not sure you need to press it adequate basis but i think this is that the precedent actually says this is a content based destruction st that is limited to speech that is related to  to strict scrutiny again if you think it can be struck down under intermediate scrutiny by all means be i mean it does want to make sure that this work isn't labeled in the process as content neutral because we think that would be inconsistent with the press it in the flaws are content heavy handed position on speech because it involves regulation of political speech but i don't think this is regulation of political speech and as i recall the ronald case it the absolute prohibition of speech and in certain locations and it just involves a burden to be absolutely sure but i'm not sure i'd rather go to the level of an absolute you know two very legitimate set of concerns here what you you don't want to get old mentality to take hold and you don't want barriers of entry consumer zero not having skyrocketing prices so i think that is occupational license and schemes particularly outside of professional services are subject to abuse but at the same informational deficit and the public needs beach queues and the occupational why some say for the public a certain assurance that it will get  although we think that the hear the interest is not compelling enough but let's consider if i might an analogy let's say that the city of trust is worried that people who like books about charleston and who make documentaries about  course so the books and documentaries to the public they're not really competent enough that it portrays the city in a bad light drives away tourists and it's not fair to the readers who fork over good money and then get a bad book i think if we did read that the government couldn't say before you write a book or make a movie that is sold for money about charleston you have to pass a test about trust i think the consumer interest protection interest is a real interest and the tourism protection interest is a real interest but they can't justify a licensing scheme that requires someone to pass a test before engaging in that kind of speech for money selling books or so movies if that's so then we think the same thing is true with regard to selling we turn guide services which are a form of speech therefore in a sense you might think of it as a form of theater especially the way some tour guides do it so i think that shows that that would be both viewed as a content based restriction would be viewed as a restriction on fully protected speech even if it's not political speech and will be subject to what you think there's a distinction between regulating the writing of a book and the regulating of giving tours of your honor there may be a distinct most of the non content elements like for example you but i think the precedents generally reject that intuition they conclude the different media are equally protected with one exception of broadcast television equally protected when it comes to regale a sion of what is of what is said and life likewise licensing requirements for it for example video games one can certainly say intuitively can see a game is not the same as a play it's not the same as a book or as a movie yet the supreme court held that video games are subject to full protection and indeed struck down under strict scrutiny and regulation and there was only collation of distribution of video games to minors even so it was struck down under strict scrutiny likewise was able communications case the court said diana porn restrictions  intuition on on on something and i do want to say most of all and it's a pleasure to hear from you as it always has and i appreciate your interest in this case and then coming before the court if you council for mentioning this issue about books on charleston because it allows me to to make the point i was trying to make earlier this is a distinction between conduct and speech guiding someone you've got to have some basic ability to guide for instance i took a smattering of high school spanish and if i held myself out as a spanish language interpreter and less than once they got past counting to ten i would be a very little help to anybody to the point not only obviously i have to speak to be to perform that service but i have to have the ability to even call it that service and so the six point here is regulating conduct  notion of this being having a speech component is incidental and and this is expressions here design versus snyderman two thousand and seventeen u s supreme court case the law's effect on speech would only be incidental to its primary conduct conduct and i understand your point of contact giving tours involves contact but it also evolves contest in this case you license on the basis of both and with respect to the content you want the interest in what the person chess then you shouldn't just on the menu of the city doesn't have an interest in what the person but like guiding is not just talking obviously for instance someone standing on its own street corner for pay  subject matter is tested because this was found thanks two thousand and three of our two appendix to the city surveyed in partnership with the charleston chamber of commerce about why it was the tourists were coming to charleston and the study this is in the judge customer's preference expectation this is promoting and protecting the quality that is received for the service of guiding this provided page two thousand and nine to join appendix the course specifically f context there was some notion it almost sounded like we were hearing evidence your argument it's really out of place that it was the only evidence in the record is the testimony of people that were associated with the city well but that is evidence that's that's not  that order and find one that's where that is absolutely not in there and in fact the judge makes clear that in terms of the end because again this is a health review obviously in terms of a factual evidence your defect record that causes us to lose this case there is not one that judge norton's order says i don't have a problem with justifications i have a problem with the timing of them because this is the final language before he l point there's been a lot of discussion and if you want to have some concluding comments just like to make those articulate your time is expired but i want to give you the last word so why don't you just a different object of entirely i can get to richmond had this argument been there by train or by car or by plane if those are alternatives but if i couldn't go to to the sea i mean that's just going somewhere else and so for an alternative to be one that needs to be discussed it has to be at least as effective because if it's not it's not an alternative it's an alternative is a different means to substantially same end it's not a different means to a materially different land and to rule otherwise your owner is going to get the court has mentioned this in denver area education telecom about creating rigid rules that become a straitjacket the disables the government from responding to serious problems which just is additionally the reason we're doing this article telephone is is one that suggests that the government think especially that flames are trying to apply a standard that is incredibly unwieldy for instance i heard it said to try and question that with another had to be actually trying these methods and said would that be the best way i mean that that would be an incredible standard very much thank you so much thank you ron i want to find counsel all three of you for a helpful contributions you've made t