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