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.
> 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.
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.
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.
> 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
"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.
> "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.
> 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.
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.
> So would private tutoring be technically illegal in CA?
No, the law at issue (as stated in the document mischaracterized upthread) restricts only “private postsecondary education”.
The applicable definition of “postsecondary education” is at Cal.Ed.Code §
94857:
“Postsecondary education” means a formal institutional educational program whose curriculum is designed primarily for students who have completed or terminated their secondary education or are beyond the compulsory age of secondary education, including programs whose purpose is academic, vocational, or continuing professional education.
Private tutoring is not within it's scope (private tutoring at the elementary/secondary level that is used as an alternative to mandatory schooling or parent howmschooling is regulated in CA by a different law, but that's only when it is taking the place of mandatory schooling, not supplementing it or serving unrelated functions.)
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.
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.
> Lambda, Inc. of California, doing business as Lambda School, operates as a school. The School offers course such as computer science, software engineering, machine learning, web developing, and java script learning programs. Lambda School serves clients in the State of California.
> SUB-INDUSTRY
> Educational Services
> WEBSITE
> www.lambdaschool.com
So far so good.
The address does appear to be wrong, judging by the entry for "LAMBDA INC. WHICH WILL DO BUSINESS IN CALIFORNIA AS LAMBDA SCHOOL" at https://businesssearch.sos.ca.gov/
But,
> Entity Address:
> 5820 STONERIDGE MALL RD STE 212 PLEASANTON CA 94588
sure seems to suggest that you've got a physical presence in California.
I was under the impression that extant businesses have some value purely for their history of being extant businesses, and are sometimes bought and sold for that reason, so it didn't seem impossible that Lambda School was technically the reimagining of some now-dead shell corporation founded in 1983.
Bloomberg's phone number for Lambda School appears to be right, or at least appears to be a phone number once controlled by an Austen Allred in his capacity as executive officer of a company in Utah. Now I'm pretty curious where the Bloomberg information comes from.
Could that be any more broad? Education is often just verbal and written communication between people. Seems like a first amendment violation.