But don't some cities have regulations about where newspaper companies
can place vending machines and have some rules about sales? As an
example, in Washington, hawkers are not permitted to sell newspapers
within the Metro transportation system, a governmental or
quasi-governmental organization (there are machines in the stations
which, I presume, are rented by distributors).
Similarly, many cities have regulations regarding other aspects of
what some say constitutes "free speech." Adult entertainment
facilities are often limited to small areas within an urban setting,
with regulations like the location may not be within 1000 feet of a
school or church and/or must be located in a commercial (or perhaps
even industrial) zone.
Places like Palm Beach County, Florida have made efforts to regulate
the uniforms hot dog salesmen (or women) use, saying that they may not
wear string bikinis while selling their hotdogs. Is that regulation of
freedom of expression?
Many communities have regular art or community fairs, often on public
property. In order to display art at these events, participants are
required to register and obtain a permit or license to participate.
One potential solution to the Met situation is for the Mayor's office/
City Council to issue a license to a company/organization for
exclusive use of the area in front of the museum for the purposes of
conducting regular (unending) art fairs. This company (or
organization) ARTIST??!! the Met??!! could then develop a registration
system and/or a rotating scheme for allowing a variety of artists to
participate. The organization would then be responsible for
controlling competition for space, public safety, and limiting any
criminal potential.
This might very well keep the Mayor, the Met, and the artists happy.
What do you think? Is this an approach worth pursuing?
-Steve Eichner
Research Analyst, Association of Science-Technology Centers
[log in to unmask]
The opinion above is MINE and does not necessarily reflect anyone
else's, including my employer.
______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Robert A. Baron wrote:
> It seems to me that if free speech is to mean anything at all, it must be
> allied to the ability and the mechanism to distribute. Free speech has
> traditionally be tied to the freedom of the press. And freedom of the press
> requires and assumes an ability to publish and distribute--they go hand in
> hand. Consequently if freedom of expression is to be safeguarded, it must
> be wedded to the freedom to distribute. In our society, more often than
> not, that means the freedom to sell. To limit distribution is just about
> the same thing as limiting expression. It is not without significance that
> the following expression has been adopted as the credo of desktop
> publishing: "Freedom of the press belongs to those who have one."
>
> Robert Baron
> [log in to unmask]
I agree that distribution is a necessary condition for expression. Would those
who disagree say that someone who prints a newspaper must be regulated by the
government in order to sell copies on the street?
--
Daniel C. Danzig
Coordinator for Grants and Government Funding
Natural History Museum Foundation
of Los Angeles County
900 Exposition Boulevard
Los Angeles, CA 90007
Phone: (213) 763-3309
Fax: (213) 746-2249
Email: [log in to unmask]
http://www.nhm.org
|
