In response to the idea that selling speech related materials
should not be as protected as other forms of speech distribution
please read the following precedents. Obviously, in the case of
street artists, prohibiting their sales activities or creating an
unnecessary barrier such as a permit and lottery system,
abridges their free speech.

Most people who claim that a permit, license etc. are not too
restrictive are not familiar with what the First Amendment says.

 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.

Governments often use licensing requirements as a subtle means
of repressing speech. Once a license or permit for speech is
required all that s needed to stop someone s speech is to deny or
delay the issuance of the license or permit. By requiring a permit
the government gets to decide who can speak and when they will
be allowed to speak. This is the opposite of freedom of speech.
For this reason, First Amendment activities require no permit or
license.

The First Amendment clearly states:" Congress shall make NO law...
abridging the freedom of speech..."
The permit in question states that it can be withdrawn at any time
for any reason and that once the permitee gets two summonses
 the permit is automatically withdrawn. It's not uncommon for
Parks Department permit holders to get one or two summonses
 in a single day.

What we in A.R.T.I.S.T. have made clear to the City and the Parks
Department that we have no problem with reasonable regulations
concerning how large art displays can be, exactly where on the
sidewalk they can be placed and how many can be in one area at a time.
Our dispute is simply with the right to require us to get a permit.


 Virginia State Bd. of Pharmacy v. Virginia Citizens
Consumer Council, 425 US 748, 761 (1976) "Speech is
protected even though it is a form that is sold for profit, and even
though it may involve a solicitation to purchase or otherwise pay
or contribute money."

United States v. National Treasury Employees Union No.
93-1170, 1995 WL 68442 (S. Ct. February 22, 1995) A ban on
receiving honoraria, "...unquestionably imposes a significant
burden on expressive activity...The honoraria ban imposes the
kind of burden that abridges speech under the First Amendment."

Joseph Burstyn, Inc, v. Wilson 343 U.S. 495 (1952)
"That books, newspapers and magazines are published and sold
for profit does not prevent them from being a form of expression
whose liberty is safeguarded by the First Amendment."

[Public streets are an appropriate forum for First Amendment
protected activities and have consistently been found to be the
traditional locale of free expression.]

See: Burson, 112 S. Ct. at 1850 ("Quintessential public forums"
are "parks, streets, and sidewalks."); Frisby v. Schultz, 487 U.S.
474, 481 (1988) (residential street is a public forum); United
States v. Grace, 461 U.S. 171, 176 (1983) (public sidewalks
forming perimeter of the Supreme Court grounds are public
forum for First Amendment purposes).

Loper v. New York City Police Dep't, 999 F.2d 699, 704 (2d
Cir. 1993), The sidewalks of New York City constitute a public
forum because they "...fall into the category of public property
traditionally held open to the public for expressive activity."
Hague v. C.I.O., 307 U.S. 496 (1939)
"Whenever the title of streets and parks may rest, they have
immemorially been held in trust for the use of the public...Such
use of the streets and public places has, from ancient times, been a
part of the privileges, immunites, rights and liberties of citizens.
The privilege of a citizen of the United States to use the streets
and parks for communication...must not, in the guise of
regulation, be abridged or denied."

Bery et al v. City of New York / Lederman et al v. City of
New York (2nd circuit court of appeals (1996) #95-9089].
 paintings, photographs, prints and sculptures, such as those
appellants seek to display and sell in public areas of the City,
always communicate some idea or concept to those who view it,
and as such are entitled to full First Amendment protection...the
City's requirement that appellants be licensed in order to sell their
artwork in public spaces constitutes an unconstitutional
infringement of their First Amendment rights.

It s also worth noting that for more than 100 years the Parks
Department allowed artists to SELL in front of the Metropolitan
Museum of Art without a permit. Only after the Central Park
Conservancy took over Central Parks  operation was a permit
required.

Robert Lederman, President of A.R.T.I.S.T.
(Artists: Response To Illegal State Tactics) (718) 369-2111
E-Mail: [log in to unmask]
http://www.openair.org/alerts/artist/nyc.html
Parks Commissioner Henry J. Stern (212) 360-1305, Thomas Rozinski, General
Counsel Parks 360-1314, William Leurs, President Metropolitan Museum
570-3900, Ashton Hawkins, Legal Counsel Metropolitan Museum  570-3936,
Central Park Conservancy (212) 315-0385 Also see: NY Times 3/2/98 B1;
Newsday 3/2/98 A7; Village Voice 2/24/98 pg 57; Newsday 2/26/98 A8; NY
Times 6/3/97 B2; NY Times editorial 3/4/98