I share Tom Heard's concerns and confusion. If police are truly
battering artists and protesters, that's outrageous and despicable, but
I'm bothered by the propagandistic tone of these messages about street
art sales. It's easy to muddle separate legal issues, and there are
several here that need to be distinguished. I don't think it's
reasonable to conflate the right to sell a product--whether it's a
T-shirt, painting, or kitchen utensil--with the right to free speech.
The sale of T-shirts without a license is often claimed as a free-speech
issue simply because these products bear a printed message, but I think
this is specious. If a government has a right to regulate permanent
businesses such as art galleries in fixed locations, it has a right to
regulate and/or license mobile or open-air sales as well. I don't think
requiring someone to pass through some legal and bureaucratic hoops and
pay some fees in order to conduct business is a restriction on "free
speech" at all. Is it fair to place zoning restrictions, sales tax
procedures, and licensing fees on fixed-location businesses, but not
minimal-overhead street vendors? What's being sold is beside the point.
It's an issue of commerce, not free speech. I believe in free speech and
oppose censorship, and expression through art should be recognized as a
protected form of speech. But such rights do not guarantee that you can
sell your messages and derive income from them any way you see fit. I
think communities have a fundamental right to regulate the commerce
within them in a fair and equitable way. --David Haberstich