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