0 penilaian0% menganggap dokumen ini bermanfaat (0 suara)
285 tayangan20 halaman
The decision does not delve into whether the city's actions violated the artists' constitutional right to free speech. The decision affects street artists who display their work in parks or on adjacent sidewalks. Yesterday, a group of the artists gathered outside the Metropolitan Museum to celebrate the decision.
The decision does not delve into whether the city's actions violated the artists' constitutional right to free speech. The decision affects street artists who display their work in parks or on adjacent sidewalks. Yesterday, a group of the artists gathered outside the Metropolitan Museum to celebrate the decision.
Hak Cipta:
Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
Format Tersedia
Unduh sebagai DOC, PDF, TXT atau baca online dari Scribd
The decision does not delve into whether the city's actions violated the artists' constitutional right to free speech. The decision affects street artists who display their work in parks or on adjacent sidewalks. Yesterday, a group of the artists gathered outside the Metropolitan Museum to celebrate the decision.
Hak Cipta:
Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
Format Tersedia
Unduh sebagai DOC, PDF, TXT atau baca online dari Scribd
NY Times August 11, 2001 Judge Bars Permit Requirement for Art Vendors By KATHERINE E. FINKELSTEIN
A federal judge has ruled that the Giuliani
administration's requirement that art vendors in parks have permits is a violation of the city code, which unconditionally prohibits mandatory licensing for those who sell art and books.
The decision, issued Aug. 7 by Judge Lawrence M.
McKenna of United States District Court in Manhattan, did not delve into whether the city's actions violated the artists' constitutional right to free speech. But in multiple lawsuits and legal motions that the artists have won in state and federal courts, they have argued that their rights to free speech were being restricted.
The decision, which the city vowed yesterday to
appeal, affects street artists who display their work in parks or on adjacent sidewalks, including those at the Metropolitan Museum of Art, which are part of Central Park. Their legal battle began in 1998 after the police began issuing summonses to those without permits. The conflict escalated into street protests and arrests, and the police confiscated some artwork. Yesterday, a group of the artists gathered outside the Metropolitan Museum to celebrate the decision. Holding an unflattering painting of Mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani, Robert Lederman, one of the artists, said that the legal victory protected the rights of everyone from leafleteers to media magnates whose papers are sold in vending boxes, which require no permits.
''Our efforts continue to make this city a place
where artists can enjoy the freedom to create, display and sell their works,'' he said, ''and this most essential of human freedoms can continue to be enjoyed by all New Yorkers.''
The federal decision came on the heels of a state
decision last week that also favored the artists. A state appeals court affirmed the decision of a judge in State Supreme Court in Manhattan who dismissed criminal charges against two artists who were given summonses for selling artwork without a permit.
The Manhattan district attorney's office has
decided to appeal that decision also, according to city officials. The officials acknowledged that after the state decision last week they told the police and the Parks Department, which has jurisdiction over the space, to stop issuing summonses to the artists.
Yesterday, city officials characterized the defeats
in state and federal courts as the result of confusion over the interpretation of the city code. The parks commissioner, Henry J. Stern, called the case ''a highly technical decision dealing with effect of administrative code on park-related matters.''
But he said that the Parks Department hoped to
impose ''reasonable regulations'' either through legal remedy or some amendment to the city code. Currently, he said, ''the unregulated commercial sale of art in public parks is inappropriate and intrusive.''
A lawyer for the city, Robin Binder, said last night,
''The city thinks the decision is wrong and intends to appeal.'' The city can appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit and beyond that to the United States Supreme Court.
Both sides seemed poised for further legal
fighting yesterday. At the Metropolitan Museum, one of the artists, Wei Zhang, said that he had come from China, a country without human rights or free speech. After getting here, he said, the Giuliani administration had him arrested and confiscated his paintings. ''I come to the wrong place again,' '' he said.
The discord began in March 1998, when the city
began to try to regulate the cluster of street artists outside the Metropolitan Museum and began issuing 24 permits a month -- at $25 each -- to those selling their work there. The fine for those selling works without permits was $1,000.
When the artists organized protests, singing and
likening Mr. Giuliani to a dictator, the police started arresting them, leading a number of them away in handcuffs. Officials from the Metropolitan Museum said at the time that they did not have any complaints with the artists.
The artists organized a group, Artist, an acronym
for Artists' Response to Illegal State Tactics, and demanded that the state abide by a 1996 federal court decision that was the first to reject the city's efforts to license artists. Their protests and the arrests continued, and the lawsuits began as they fought what they called restrictions on their freedom.
In August 1998, Judge Lucy Billings of State
Supreme Court in Manhattan dismissed the charges against several of the artists, ruling that city law prevented the licensing of book and art vendors. She quoted a 1982 City Council law that said, ''It is consistent with the principles of free speech and freedom of the press to eliminate as many restrictions on the vending of written matter as is consistent with the public health, safety and welfare.''
While the city appeals, one of the lawyers for the
artists, Robert Perry, said his clients might go to trial to get damages for the restriction on their livelihood. Meanwhile, the artists seemed to be doing a brisk business selling postcards that depicted Mr. Giuliani in various monstrous guises.
NY Times June 1, 2002 Ban Lifted on Capitol Steps Protests
A federal appeals court panel today struck down a
rule banning demonstrations on a sidewalk outside the United States Capitol, ruling that the ban violated freedom of speech.
The unanimous decision by a three-judge panel of
the federal Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit upheld a First Amendment constitutional challenge to the rules, which prohibit ''demonstration activity'' like parading, picketing, leafleting, vigils, sit-ins and speechmaking.
The demonstration ban was adopted by the
Capitol Police Board, which has the power to adopt regulations under federal law. But the three-judge panel held that the site of the demonstration, a sidewalk leading to the Capitol steps, was a public forum.
Judge David S. Tatel wrote that the sidewalk
wraps around the Capitol almost without interruption, giving pedestrians access to the front of the building, which he called a centerpiece of United States democracy.
The case involved Robert Lederman, an artist who
demonstrated at the Capitol to publicize a lawsuit he and others brought to sell their work on New York City sidewalks.
Two Capitol police officers in 1997 arrested Mr.
Lederman, who was distributing leaflets and carrying a sign reading ''Stop Arresting Artists'' when he was arrested. He was acquitted by a judge in the city's Superior Court who found the ban unconstitutional.
Mr. Lederman then sued in federal court,
challenging the ban's constitutionality and seeking damages from various parties, including the two police officers.
The court rejected the argument by government
lawyers that the sidewalk functioned as a ''security perimeter'' around the Capitol and therefore justified the ban.
The court ordered that an injunction be entered
barring enforcement of the demonstration ban.
The sidewalk at issue currently is closed to the
public during construction of a visitors' center, a project expected to last several years. NY Times June 3, 1997 SoHo Street Artists Triumph As High Court Rebuffs City By RICK LYMAN
Ending a case that pitted the First Amendment
rights of street artists against New York City's efforts to control sidewalk congestion, the United States Supreme Court yesterday refused to hear the city's appeal of an earlier ruling that barred it from requiring the artists to be licensed.
The city must now develop a policy to bring it into
accord with a decision last October by the Federal Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, which said street artists are protected by the First Amendment in the same way as sidewalk booksellers, who do not need city licenses.
''The city is now working on a policy to bring us
into compliance with today's court action,'' said Colleen Roche, a spokeswoman for Mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani, ''and, while disappointing, today's decision is not unanticipated.''
In recent years, as the Giuliani administration
began to crack down on ''quality of life'' crimes, street artists began to be considered in the same category as T-shirt vendors, who are required to have licenses. Unlicensed artists trying to sell their wares were often arrested or chased by the police out of such prime selling areas as SoHo and Times Square. There are only 853 licenses to go around, however, and there is a long waiting list.
Citing the General Vendors Law, the
administration argued that city officials had the right to restrict the number and location of street artists as they do other types of vendors, to ease congestion and insure a free flow of pedestrian traffic.
But the artists sued and, asking for a temporary
restraining order, argued that they deserved the same protections as booksellers and others selling printed materials, who had long been exempt from licensing.
In 1995, a District Court refused to grant the
restraining order. The artists appealed and many continued to sell their works, risking arrest. But the circuit court ruled in October that the lower court had erred in its interpretation of the First Amendment.
''Visual art is as wide ranging in its depiction of
ideas, concepts and emotions as any book, treatise, pamphlet or other writing, and is similarly entitled to First Amendment protection,'' the circuit court ruled. ''The city's requirement that appellants be licensed in order to sell their art work in public spaces constitutes an unconstitutional infringement on their First Amendment rights.''
Robert Lederman, a plaintiff in the case and head
of an association of street artists, said the Supreme Court's decision was a ''significant triumph'' for the estimated 500 artists who try to sell their work along the city's sidewalks.
''We are finally going to be treated like ordinary
citizens instead of second-class citizens,'' said Mr. Lederman, who heads Artists Response to Illegal State Tactics, or Artist. ''I've been selling my works on the streets since 1962, when I was 12 years old. It is a tremendous relief to know that I am not subject to arrest anymore.''
Councilwoman Kathryn E. Freed, who has
supported efforts to regulate sidewalk congestion, including the licensing of artists, said after yesterday's decision, ''I don't have a problem with them saying that visual art is as important as written art.'' However, she added, ''the municipality has to have the right to have some sort of control over its sidewalks.''
Robert Louttit, director of community safety for
the Fifth Avenue Business Improvement District, which was among the most vocal groups calling for regulation of street artists and other vendors, said he was disappointed with the ruling. ''We've got sidewalks that are often very, very crowded,'' Mr. Louttit said. ''To add obstacles to pedestrian traffic is a real problem, often forcing people to walk out in the street just to get from one place to the other, and it creates an attractive environment for pickpockets and other crime.''
Representatives for street artists said yesterday
that the administration had continued crackdowns against them as recently as last weekend, despite the appeals court ruling. Ms. Roche declined to say what, if any, action would be taken against unlicensed street artists until the new policy is drafted.
Most of the confrontations between the police and
the street artists have occurred along West Broadway and Prince Street in SoHo, a neighborhood represented by Ms. Freed in the City Council.
Mr. Lederman has charged that the city and Ms.
Freed are trying to restrict the street artists at the behest of landlord groups. Ms. Freed said she is acting only on requests from SoHo residents that something be done about congestion.
An immediate impact of yesterday's decision, Mr.
Lederman said, is that the quality of art being offered for sale on the sidewalks will go up. The police have frequently confiscated and destroyed art works, he said, making many artists leery of exhibiting their best efforts. ''Now I think you will find a Renaissance of street art,'' Mr. Lederman said. ''This decision will be a cultural plus for everybody in the city.''
Selected bibliography out of thousands of articles
on this issue:
"Judge Refuses To Enforce Permit rule For Artists"
New York
Law Journal 8/17/98 and 8/18/98
NYTIMES 8/18/98 "Charges Are Dropped in Sale of
Art in Parks in New York"
NY Times Metro Sec. 5/8/98 B4 "For Giuliani,
Hobbist, A Different Big Picture";
NY Times editorial 3/4/98 Street Art Wars;
New York Post 7/6/98 "Paint Misbehavin": an Art
Attack".
N.Y. Press 7/8/98 "Public enemy: Robert
Lederman’s War Against
Mayor Giuliani"
Newsday 3/16/98 pg 4 "Now Showing: Art of
Protest". NY TIMES Metro pg 1 3/22/98 "War of the Paintbrushes";
Time Out 4/16-23/98 pg. 39 "Brush With Danger";
N.Y. Times Metro 4/18/98 "Judge Upholds Limit on
Artists Selling Pictures Near Museum";
Newsday 4/20/98 cover story "Under Giuliani City
Has Repeatedly Stifled Dissent".
NY Times 3/2/98 B1 "Artists Arrested In Raucus
Rally Against
Sales Permits Near Museum"
Newsday 3/2/98 A7 "Ojections D’ Art"
Newsday 2/26/98 A8 "Artistic Licenses"
Village Voice 2/24/98 "Chronic Offender" pg 57
New York Times Metro Section B3, Tuesday, June
3, 1997 "SoHo Street Artists Triumph As High Court Rebuffs City"
New York Times Editorial Page Wednesday, June
4,1997 "Street Art Wars"
Art In America December 1996 "Feds Rule in
Favor of Street Art" Art News December 1996 pg. 49 "Court Curbs Ban On Street Artists"
Daily News Oct. 12, 1996 pg. 5 "Court Brushes Off
Art Sale Permits"
New York Times Editorial Page October 19, 1996
"The Fight Over Street Art"
Art In America, March 1996 pg. 128 "New Allies
for Street Artists".
Christian Science Monitor Thursday, July 14, 1994
pg. 11 "New York Reins In Street Art"
Christian Science Monitor Wednesday, Febuary
14, 1996,"Conflict On the Street: Artists v. N.Y.C."
ALSO see:
Daily News lead editorial 2/23/04 Put the peddle
to the metal
Gotham Gazette 1/5/04 Artists' Fight To Sell On
The Sidewalk
NY Times Editorial page 1/4/04 OP-ED Let New
York's Veterans Vend
NY Post Editorial 1/2/04 SILVER FOR UNSAFE
STREETS NY Post BLAME ALBANY GRIDLOCK FOR NIGHTMARE CONGESTION
NY Post 12/31/03 NYERS GET FED UP WITH
HAWKER CLOG
NY Post 12/31/03 BIZARRE BAZAAR HURTING
CITY'S P.R.
NY Press 12/30/03 Scrubbing First Amendment
Ave. Who’s behind the war against the vendors?
by Robert Lederman
NY Times City Section 12/21/03 Ye Olde
Coniferous Tree Exception
Daily News 12/19/03 City lets foul food carts stew
NY Post 12/19/03 NEW YUCK CITY FOOD VENDORS
NY Post 12/19/03 KNOCKOFF SALES SACK CITY
PURSE
NY Times 12/19/03 Comptroller Urges Crackdown
on Pushcart Food Monitoring
AM-NY Editorial 12/9/03 Street Vendors Are Worse
Than Presidential Gridlock
NY Post Editorial 12/8/03 VENDOR VILLAINY
Daily News 12/7/03 Home front battle lines
Daily News 12/7/03 by Johnathan Capehart Clear
sidewalks of New York
12/6/03 Daily News editorial Blame Silver & Bruno
Daily News 12/3/03 Mike tags vendors as
dangerous
NY Post 12/3/03 BLOOMY TRIES TO SELL ALBANY
ON VENDOR LAW
NY Times 12/5/03 Albany Fails to Pass a Bill to
Regulate New York City's Vendors
NY Post 12/05/03 POLS SURRENDER TO THE
VENDORS
Daily News 12/5/03 City shopping for help with
vendor rules
NY Times editorial 12/4/03 FIXING ALBANY How
Hard Is It to Control the Vendors?
NY Times 12/2/03 At Crossroads of World, Gridlock
on the Sidewalks
Daily News lead editorial 11/29/03 Sweep the
peddlers off the streets
Daily News 12/2/03 Canny ad plan City trashes
sponsors - for a fee (BIDs install 400 ad-covered trash cans in Times Sq]
CRAINS NY BUSINESS 11/24/03 Street vendors
raise ruckus, add to the holiday crush; Businesses calling for restrictions; First Amendment issue
Daily News 11/10/03 New York or Bangkok? Army
of street vendors gives city Third World feel
Daily News editorial 11/10/03 They're sidewalks,
not bazaars
New York Post 6/18/03 VENDING HAGGLE
NY Times 7/10/03 Veterans, Vendors and Beaten
Paths
The Villager 7/24/03 Artists and city view permits
ruling differently
Daily News 5/10/03 City gags on vendor tax bills
NY Post 5/10/03 'DEADBEAT' PRETZEL TWIST
NY Times 9/4/02 Commerce Rushes in Where Art
Once Ruled
Newsday 5/20/02 Street Artists Refuse to Be
Curbed
NY Sun 1/8/03 To Vend Or Not To Vend
NY Sun 12/24/02 City Is Planning New Rules For Vendors
NY Sun Editorial 8/15/02Paranoid Protesting
NY Sun 8/14/02 Parks Commissioner Planning a
Crackdown On Venders of Artwork
NY Times 8/11/01 Judge Bars Permit Requirement
for Art Vendors
NY Post 8/11/2001Court: Permit Art Without
Permit
Newsday 8/11/2001 Judge: Street artists no longer
have to buy vendor permits
Newsday 1/28/03 Selling Art In Parks At Issue
OUR TOWN 2/13/03 City May Subject Park Artists
to Permit System, Many cite First Amendment violations
NY Sun 1/28/03 Venders Protest City Plan To
Require Park Permits
Newsday 1/22/03 Putting Burgers Before Art Parks
Commissioner Wants Artists Out, Fast Food In
NY Newsday Jan 20, 2003 Wendy's Plan Makes
Park A Garden of Eatin'; Fast food on public property
New York Sun 9/24/02 ARTISTS GAIN STRENGTH
IN FIGHT WITH MAYOR
Newsday 8/15/02 Mayor's Bill Is Last Draw For
Artists
Newsday 3/2/98 Objections D’ Art
Newsday 2/26/98 Artistic Licenses
NY Times 3/2/98 Artists Arrested in a Rally
Opposing Permits
NY Times 3/22/98 War of the Paintbrushes
NY Times editorial 8/20/01New York's Art Wars
Continue
NY Times editorial The Fight Over Street Art
3/4/98
NY Post editorial 5/17/98 The ARTIST Hustle
N.Y. Post editorial 8/20/98 Free Speech Or Free
Exhibition Space?
NY Post editorial 6/16/98 Demonizing Rudy
Giuliani
Christian Science Monitor 7/14/94 New York Reins
In Street Art
Christian Science Monitor 2/14/96 Conflict on the
Street: Artists v. N.Y.C.
Washington Post 3/20/2000 Speech Activist 2;
Capitol Police 0
Washington Post 6/1/2002 Capitol Ban on Protests
Nullified Court Opens Sidewalk To Demonstrators
[Ruling: Robert Lederman v. United States]
NY Daily News 4/12/2002 Peddlers Take Stand Vs.
Cops for Art's Sake
Newsday 12/19/99 A Thorn in the Mayor's Side
Village Voice 4/2/03 Pro-War Media Conglomerate
Tries to Take Over New York
NY Observer NY 3/31/03 Will Parks Department
Once Again Regulate Art Vendors?
Village Voice 3/12/03 Christo Challenges
Bloomberg on Art in the Parks; Closing 'The Gates' to Intro #160
Newsday 1/28/03 Selling Art In Parks At Issue
NY Times 8/17/01PUBLIC LIVES End Draws Near
for Mayor's Artful Adversary "Chronic Offender", Village Voice 2/24/98; Newsday 4/20/98 cover story "Under Giuliani City Has Repeatedly Stifled Dissent"; N.Y. Times 5/7/98 pg B4 "For Giuliani, A Different Big Picture"; Editorial: "the Big Chill" by Bob Herbert NY Times 5/31/98.; NY Times 6/2/98 "Vending Ban Widens: not Just Food But also Books and Art".
Spencer Tunick v. Howard Safir, in His Official Capacity As The Police Commissioner of The City of New York, and The City of New York, 209 F.3d 67, 2d Cir. (2000)
United States v. Marsha B. Kokinda and Kevin E. Pearl, Christian Advocates Serving Evangelism Project For Public Spaces, Inc., Amicus Curiae, 866 F.2d 699, 4th Cir. (1989)
The Conflict With Slavery and Others, Complete, Volume VII, The Works of Whittier: The Conflict With Slavery, Politicsand Reform, The Inner Life and Criticism by Whittier, John Greenleaf, 1807-1892