The responses to my post have been great so far and have really got me
thinking about this protest and all the issues involved.
BUT... I think there is still a big question of where to draw the line
between art as speech and art as commerce.  I think this issue is probably
separarte from wether or not street (and other) artists contribute
greatly to the life of a city etc... In my opinion they do, but this
does not relate directly to the issue of wether or not artists selling
work on the street should be regulated as businesses or protected as
is due free speech.  If there are no permits available then the problem
is the issuing of permits, but this only matters if you agree that
the artists should be regulated in the first place.

I think before I post too much more I will have to read up on some of the
reporting related to this issue so I am better informed.  Right now it is
simply a philosophical discussion for me which should probably be more
informed by what is happening in the real case.  Before I go I have to point
out that it occurs to me that a government that is trying to set up
hurdles in an attempt to ban street artists is operating on the same
principles as those who champion free speech only while making a profit
from it.  Both would be using deceit to hide their true motives.  I think
media conglomerates are way more guilty of this than street artisits.


I would be interested in your thoughts, in the meantime keep the updates
on the protest coming!!

Tom Heard