Met protest: why selling art is 1st amend speech
ARTISTpres
In response to the idea that selling speech related materials
should not be as protected as other forms of speech distribution
please read the following precedents. Obviously, in the case of
street artists, prohibiting their sales activities or creating an
unnecessary barrier such as a permit and lottery system,
abridges their free speech.
Most people who claim that a permit, license etc. are not too
restrictive are not familiar with what the First Amendment says.
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of
religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the
freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people
peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a
redress of grievances.”
Governments often use licensing requirements as a subtle means
of repressing speech. Once a license or permit for speech is
required all that’s needed to stop someone’s speech is to deny or
delay the issuance of the license or permit. By requiring a permit
the government gets to decide who can speak and when they will
be allowed to speak. This is the opposite of freedom of speech.
For this reason, First Amendment activities require no permit or
license.
The First Amendment clearly states:" Congress shall make NO law...
abridging the freedom of speech..."
The permit in question states that it can be withdrawn at any time
for any reason and that once the permitee gets two summonses
the permit is automatically withdrawn. It's not uncommon for
Parks Department permit holders to get one or two summonses
in a single day.
What we in A.R.T.I.S.T. have made clear to the City and the Parks
Department that we have no problem with reasonable regulations
concerning how large art displays can be, exactly where on the
sidewalk they can be placed and how many can be in one area at a time.
Our dispute is simply with the right to require us to get a permit.
Virginia State Bd. of Pharmacy v. Virginia Citizens
Consumer Council, 425 US 748, 761 (1976) "Speech is
protected even though it is a form that is sold for profit, and even
though it may involve a solicitation to purchase or otherwise pay
or contribute money."
United States v. National Treasury Employees Union No.
93-1170, 1995 WL 68442 (S. Ct. February 22, 1995) A ban on
receiving honoraria, "...unquestionably imposes a significant
burden on expressive activity...The honoraria ban imposes the
kind of burden that abridges speech under the First Amendment."
Joseph Burstyn, Inc, v. Wilson 343 U.S. 495 (1952)
"That books, newspapers and magazines are published and sold
for profit does not prevent them from being a form of expression
whose liberty is safeguarded by the First Amendment."
[Public streets are an appropriate forum for First Amendment
protected activities and have consistently been found to be the
traditional locale of free expression.]
See: Burson, 112 S. Ct. at 1850 ("Quintessential public forums"
are "parks, streets, and sidewalks."); Frisby v. Schultz, 487 U.S.
474, 481 (1988) (residential street is a public forum); United
States v. Grace, 461 U.S. 171, 176 (1983) (public sidewalks
forming perimeter of the Supreme Court grounds are public
forum for First Amendment purposes).
Loper v. New York City Police Dep't, 999 F.2d 699, 704 (2d
Cir. 1993), The sidewalks of New York City constitute a public
forum because they "...fall into the category of public property
traditionally held open to the public for expressive activity."
Hague v. C.I.O., 307 U.S. 496 (1939)
"Whenever the title of streets and parks may rest, they have
immemorially been held in trust for the use of the public...Such
use of the streets and public places has, from ancient times, been a
part of the privileges, immunites, rights and liberties of citizens.
The privilege of a citizen of the United States to use the streets
and parks for communication...must not, in the guise of
regulation, be abridged or denied."
Bery et al v. City of New York / Lederman et al v. City of
New York (2nd circuit court of appeals (1996) #95-9089].
“paintings, photographs, prints and sculptures, such as those
appellants seek to display and sell in public areas of the City,
always communicate some idea or concept to those who view it,
and as such are entitled to full First Amendment protection...the
City's requirement that appellants be licensed in order to sell their
artwork in public spaces constitutes an unconstitutional
infringement of their First Amendment rights.”
It’s also worth noting that for more than 100 years the Parks
Department allowed artists to SELL in front of the Metropolitan
Museum of Art without a permit. Only after the Central Park
Conservancy took over Central Parks’ operation was a permit
required.
Robert Lederman, President of A.R.T.I.S.T.
(Artists: Response To Illegal State Tactics) (718) 369-2111
E-Mail: ARTIS...@aol.com
http://www.openair.org/alerts/artist/nyc.html
Parks Commissioner Henry J. Stern (212) 360-1305, Thomas Rozinski, General
Counsel Parks 360-1314, William Leurs, President Metropolitan Museum
570-3900, Ashton Hawkins, Legal Counsel Metropolitan Museum 570-3936,
Central Park Conservancy (212) 315-0385 Also see: NY Times 3/2/98 B1;
Newsday 3/2/98 A7; Village Voice 2/24/98 pg 57; Newsday 2/26/98 A8; NY
Times 6/3/97 B2; NY Times editorial 3/4/98
Brother Alphabet
On 10 Mar 1998, ARTISTpres wrote:
> In response to the idea that selling speech related materials
> should not be as protected as other forms of speech distribution
> please read the following precedents. Obviously, in the case of
> street artists, prohibiting their sales activities or creating an
> unnecessary barrier such as a permit and lottery system,
> abridges their free speech.
There is no constitutional right to override city regulations regardless
of whether speech rights feathers get ruffled.
We have the right to say what we wish, but we do not have the right to
sell paintings on the street without a permit if a permit is required.
Anyone can claim 1st amendment protection for any number of insane or
irresponsible acts. Why contribute to the abuse of the constitution? Why
not just buy a permit? It seems to me that buying a permit would solve the
whole problem.
If there is a constitutional right to sell artworks, why not picket
the galleries for limiting free speech? That way if the protest is
actually taken seriously the artists can sell their work for much more
money. Odds are that these artists' work is mediocre and instead of
improving upon that, they prefer to make some noise and to pretend to be
victims of the system.
Artists do not own the streets any more than bums or CEOs own the
streets. Everyone owns the streets and if you wish to solicit products on
the streets, you need everyone's permission. Everyone's permission is
granted by way of the permit.
The first amendment does not grant artists the right to get in
people's faces. Getting in someone's face, or in someone's way is a
violation of that person's own rights.
Hutto
Andrew Werby
In article <Pine.SOL.3.96.98031...@Ra.MsState.Edu>,
Brother Alphabet <ja...@isis.msstate.edu> wrote:
> On 10 Mar 1998, ARTISTpres wrote:
>
> > In response to the idea that selling speech related materials
> > should not be as protected as other forms of speech distribution
> > please read the following precedents. Obviously, in the case of
> > street artists, prohibiting their sales activities or creating an
> > unnecessary barrier such as a permit and lottery system,
> > abridges their free speech.
>
> There is no constitutional right to override city regulations regardless
> of whether speech rights feathers get ruffled.
[Actually, when they conflict, the constitution of the United States does
take precedence over city regulations (state laws too, for that matter.)]
>
> We have the right to say what we wish, but we do not have the right to
> sell paintings on the street without a permit if a permit is required.
[Wrong again. Paintings, like newspapers, are constitutionally protected
forms of "speech", since they are a method of expressing opinion. And the
sale of newspapers has been upheld by the courts many times, in spite of
city regulations to the contrary. These courageous folks have won a court
battle already on this issue, which the City of New York, to its shame, has
chosen to ignore.]
>
> Anyone can claim 1st amendment protection for any number of insane or
> irresponsible acts. Why contribute to the abuse of the constitution?
[Claiming is one thing. Prevailing in a court of law is another. Making art
and attempting to display it in public is neither insane nor irresponsible.
This is use, not abuse of the Constitution.]
Why
> not just buy a permit? It seems to me that buying a permit would solve the
> whole problem.
[First of all, the permit system is illegal on the face of it. What if
Mississippi decreed that you had to get a permit from the State to post
articles on the internet? Would you meekly comply?
Second, the number of permits on offer is inadequate to the demand, so
even if you wanted to buy one you couldn't. Would you sit there and wait
until your number came up, so you could have the chance to say your piece?]
>
> If there is a constitutional right to sell artworks, why not picket
> the galleries for limiting free speech?
[Because the Constitutionally protected forum in question here is the
street, not privately run galleries. The latter have their own freedom
of speech, which includes the right not to show work they dislike.]
That way if the protest is
> actually taken seriously the artists can sell their work for much more
> money. Odds are that these artists' work is mediocre and instead of
> improving upon that, they prefer to make some noise and to pretend to be
> victims of the system.
[The issue of mediocrity is something you are hardly qualified to pronounce
upon, not having seen the work in question. It is also entirely beside the
point. Whether or not the work comes up to your standards, their right to
display it on the street is clear. If they are being prevented from doing so,
then their victimhood is not a pretense.]
> Artists do not own the streets any more than bums or CEOs own the
> streets. Everyone owns the streets and if you wish to solicit products on
> the streets, you need everyone's permission. Everyone's permission is
> granted by way of the permit.
[Not only don't you need "everyone's" permission to display art, hand out
flyers, make speeches, or sell your printed opinions on the street, you
don't need anyone's. The permit system as there constituted is a farce which
has no chance to stand up in court, and they obviously know this, since they
are relying on confiscation and other bullying tactics to enforce it, rather
than taking offenders to court, where they realize they will lose on
constitutional grounds.]
> The first amendment does not grant artists the right to get in
> people's faces. Getting in someone's face, or in someone's way is a
> violation of that person's own rights.
[Blocking traffic is a legitimate form of protest, as is shouting and making
a fuss generally. New York street artists have been forced to use these tactics
to get their point across. But in the normal course of their activities, they
were neither blocking traffic nor harassing passersby.]
>
> Hutto
[I continue to be amazed that here, in a forum dedicated to and populated by
artists, the brave struggle of these New York street artists gets so little
respect and support. These guys are fighting the good fight for all of us,
and if they are ultimately crushed by the unfair and illegal actions of the
City administration, we will all be the poorer for it.]
UNITED ARTWORKS- SCULPTURE AND MORE
http://users.lanminds.com/~drewid
Useful Resources, Technical Tips
and Custom Art in Many Media
Ninguno
dre...@lanminds.com (Andrew Werby) wrote:
>In article <Pine.SOL.3.96.98031...@Ra.MsState.Edu>,
>Brother Alphabet <ja...@isis.msstate.edu> wrote:
>
>> On 10 Mar 1998, ARTISTpres wrote:
>>
>> > In response to the idea that selling speech related materials
>> > should not be as protected as other forms of speech distribution
>> > please read the following precedents. Obviously, in the case of
>> > street artists, prohibiting their sales activities or creating an
>> > unnecessary barrier such as a permit and lottery system,
>> > abridges their free speech.
>>
>> There is no constitutional right to override city regulations regardless
>> of whether speech rights feathers get ruffled.
>
>[Actually, when they conflict, the constitution of the United States does
> take precedence over city regulations (state laws too, for that matter.)]
Irrelevant. But I suppose you knew that... one wonders, though.
Your desire to engage in a *commercial* activity -- which is regulated
by the state -- is not considered free speech.
>
>>
>> We have the right to say what we wish, but we do not have the right to
>> sell paintings on the street without a permit if a permit is required.
>
>[Wrong again. Paintings, like newspapers, are constitutionally protected
> forms of "speech", since they are a method of expressing opinion. And the
> sale of newspapers has been upheld by the courts many times, in spite of
>city regulations to the contrary. These courageous folks have won a court
> battle already on this issue, which the City of New York, to its shame, has
>chosen to ignore.]
This is what is called "changing the subject".
While the content of a painting would be considered free speech issue
-- THE ACT OF SELLING THE PAINTING ISN'T.
>
>>
>> Anyone can claim 1st amendment protection for any number of insane or
>> irresponsible acts. Why contribute to the abuse of the constitution?
>
>[Claiming is one thing. Prevailing in a court of law is another. Making art
>and attempting to display it in public is neither insane nor irresponsible.
>This is use, not abuse of the Constitution.]
Chorus:
The act of painting is covered by freedom of speech. The **sale**
of the painting is not.
>
>
> Why
>> not just buy a permit? It seems to me that buying a permit would solve the
>> whole problem.
>
>[First of all, the permit system is illegal on the face of it. What if
>Mississippi decreed that you had to get a permit from the State to post
> articles on the internet? Would you meekly comply?
Bullshit. The state has the legitimate right to regulate commercial
transactions of every sort... happens all the time.
Whether you like to think so or not, selling "art" is treated just
like selling 'burgers. Deal with it.
>
>
> Second, the number of permits on offer is inadequate to the demand, so
> even if you wanted to buy one you couldn't. Would you sit there and wait
> until your number came up, so you could have the chance to say your piece?]
Repeat chorus.
>
>
>>
>> If there is a constitutional right to sell artworks, why not picket
>> the galleries for limiting free speech?
>
>[Because the Constitutionally protected forum in question here is the
>street, not privately run galleries. The latter have their own freedom
>of speech, which includes the right not to show work they dislike.]
Repeat chorus.
>
>
>That way if the protest is
>> actually taken seriously the artists can sell their work for much more
>> money. Odds are that these artists' work is mediocre and instead of
>> improving upon that, they prefer to make some noise and to pretend to be
>> victims of the system.
>
>[The issue of mediocrity is something you are hardly qualified to pronounce
>upon, not having seen the work in question. It is also entirely beside the
>point. Whether or not the work comes up to your standards, their right to
>display it on the street is clear. If they are being prevented from doing so,
>then their victimhood is not a pretense.]
Repeat chorus.
>
>
>> Artists do not own the streets any more than bums or CEOs own the
>> streets. Everyone owns the streets and if you wish to solicit products on
>> the streets, you need everyone's permission. Everyone's permission is
>> granted by way of the permit.
>
>[Not only don't you need "everyone's" permission to display art, hand out
> flyers, make speeches, or sell your printed opinions on the street, you
>don't need anyone's. The permit system as there constituted is a farce which
> has no chance to stand up in court, and they obviously know this, since they
>are relying on confiscation and other bullying tactics to enforce it, rather
>than taking offenders to court, where they realize they will lose on
>constitutional grounds.]
Repeat chorus.
>
>
>> The first amendment does not grant artists the right to get in
>> people's faces. Getting in someone's face, or in someone's way is a
>> violation of that person's own rights.
>
>[Blocking traffic is a legitimate form of protest,
If that's the case, then it should be just as "legitimate" for me as a
driver whom your blocking to get out of my car and kick your ass.
After all, I'm just pprotesting your actions, right?
>as is shouting and making
>a fuss generally.
Oh yeah. That's smart. It'll win you a lot of sales. Not!
>New York street artists have been forced to use these tactics
>to get their point across. But in the normal course of their activities, they
>were neither blocking traffic nor harassing passersby.]
Well isn't that just special.
For someone who seems to like to spout all sorts of drivel about his
"rights" -- he doesn't seem to object to voilating the rights of
others. But that's different, right?
>[I continue to be amazed that here, in a forum dedicated to and populated by
>artists, the brave struggle of these New York street artists gets so little
>respect and support.
What was that old saying about respect.....
"It's not given, it's earned."
As far as support, maybe it's because you were a bunch of dumbasses
who thought it would be neat to block traffic -- and pissed off a lot
of locals who might have otherwise been customers.
> These guys are fighting the good fight for all of us,
Bullshit.
They're doing it for themselves. This is about M-O-N-E-Y. Period.
If you want to *SELL* stuff, pay for a license like everyone else has
to.
And consider not posting your silly shit here.
>and if they are ultimately crushed by the unfair and illegal actions of the
>City administration, we will all be the poorer for it.]
"We will all be the poorer" if we capitulate to dipshits like you who
don't want to abide by the same rules that others have to.
There is no difference between selling a 'burger and "art". It's a
commercial activity regulated by the state. You just want to think
you're better than the schmuck selling the burger. You're not. Deal
with.
Oh. yeah, and have a nice day.
Charles Eicher
In article <35099a0...@news.mindspring.com>, nobody@localhost wrote:
> Your desire to engage in a *commercial* activity -- which is regulated
> by the state -- is not considered free speech.
> While the content of a painting would be considered free speech issue
> -- THE ACT OF SELLING THE PAINTING ISN'T.
> Repeat chorus.
Yes, this is the crux of the matter. This alleged group of "artists" is
just a bunch of street vendors looking for legal protection for their
hustle.
Let me point out a couple of facts.
This whole issue of licenses was decided in the US Supreme Court many years
ago, by, of all people, the Jehovah's Witnesses. A town (I forget where)
tried to prohibit the Witnesses from distributing free pamphlets, by
forcing them to obtain a license, which the city refused to issue. The
Supreme Court held that the offering of free literature was protected as
free speech, and was not a commercial transaction, and thus could not be
regulated under commercial licenses. Let me repeat: They were GIVING AWAY
their literature FREE. The Jehovahs Witnesses won, and were allowed to give
away their literature without obtaining a vending license. However, the
court declared that if the pamphlets were offered for sale, the city did
have a right to require vending licenses.
Also note, the 1st Amendment completely prohibits the Government from
interfering in the creation of any written or visual artwork,
undistributed, for one's personal enjoyment. But it does restrict rights
once it enters the commercial marketplace. A thorough knowledge of Contract
Law is essential for all lawyers (or wannabe-lawyers like M.R.
A.R.T.I.S.T).. But occasionally, the courts DO overstep their bounds, and
trample the first amendment.
For example, there is the infamous case of the Florida artist who drew some
awful comic book, I think it was called "Boiled Angel".. I hope I remember
the details correctly.. The local prosecutor got the artist under some
trumped-up charge of obscenity and blasphemy, which the artist freely
admitted, he was trying to be as offensive as possible in his artworks,
HOWEVER, they did have redeeming social value, insofar as they were
artworks with an intent of social criticism. The judge didn't see it that
way. He sentenced him to a stiff fine, and the Judge PROHIBITED him from
EVEN DRAWING ANY images of ANY type. Even if it was just for his personal
posession, creating ANY drawn image would subject him to immediate
revocation of his probation. And the terms of his probation allowed the
State of Florida to enter his home and check, at any time, to see if he
posessed any drawings, or even drawing materials like pencil and paper.
Now, clearly THIS is a violation of the First Amendment. Even the ACLU
declared this as one of the most heinous first amendment abuses they had
ever heard. But I suppose, the citizens of florida get what they deserve.
But where was M.R. A.R.T.I.S.T when this case was going down? Too busy
defending his panhandlers and street urchins, I suppose. Some people only
care about money, not civil rights.
--
| Charles Eicher |
| -=- |
| cei...@inav.net |
Brother Alphabet
New York street artists are not doing anything for me. No 'good fight' is
being fought in my name, nor will I gain from their victories,
nor suffer from their defeats.
I never intend to solicit my work on a city street like some homeless
feeb. I have self-respect and respect for my work enough to know that my
work belongs elsewhere than on a sidewalk next to a load of people whining
over non-issues and nonexistent rights.
'Congress shall make no...'
The city government of New York is not congress. There are different
circumstances involved.
A newspaper that published pornography could not be sold in the streets
without legal implications. I could also bring up the worn-out cliches
like yelling 'fire' in a crowded theater or threatening the life
of the president. The first amendment is not a blanket pardon allowing us
to do anything we please in the name of art or press or whatever. No one
is telling these artists they can not make paintings and that is the
extent of the coverage granted by the constitution. They have the right to
make paintings, but not the right to sell them. Also, a newspaper's rights
are not related to sales, but to being printed.
You also neglected to mention that a 'protest' that has not been
sanctioned is known as a 'riot'. Inciting a riot is expressly
prohibited in most places, is it not? Of course the artists get arrested.
Too many people try to stretch the constitution to fit anything they
want to do or say or show on television. The louder people complain about
their first amendment rights, the more obvious it is that they know they
are doing something, or that they want to do something, that is out of
bounds.
If it suddenly became law that I must have a permit to post messages to
the internet, I would buy a permit. Even if it appeared to me that the law
was really misguided. I trust that if a law is seriously wrong it will
be overturned eventually. I had to spend a few months obeying that
stupid internet-content law a while back...
It is the law that you have a license to operate various sorts of
transportational machinery. It is a law that you must have a permit to
build or alter a structure.
Furthermore: You must have a permit to operate a commercial enterprise.
This allows the government to keep track of it's sales taxes. This also
grants various protections to the business in question. An artist selling
paintings is a business. Businesses must have licenses.
This whole New York thing started back in the late 80's or early 90's when
they were trying to control the panhandlers who were harassing subway
passengers and sidewalk pedestrians. The street people had also built up
this big marketplace and were selling who knows what on the streets
(impeding traffic to legitimate businesses, etc). What self-respecting
artist would want to be grouped in with pan-handlers (as if
self-respecting artists peddle paintings on the street in the first
place...) ?
We do not have the right to harm or impede our fellow citizens. If a
society decides that certain conditions are not favorable and then acts to
affect those conditions, there is no wrong done. I also believe that such
decision-making is protected by the constitution under various State's
Rights provisions. So, if the general city of New York has declared that
people selling things on the street is annoying, it is annoying. If the
artists don't like it, they can vote against the mayor, or run for mayor
themselves. They can lobby and campaign for specialized provisions for
artisans. They have plenty of constitutionally sound options. However,
what do they do? They break the law.
A law might seem unfair, or it might even truly be unfair, but as long as
it is the law, it should be respected as such. THAT is the RESPONSIBILITY
of freedom. All these people want is the LUXURY of freedom, and they are
completely unwilling to hold up the other end.
It is when you take freedom for granted that it goes away. People make
themselves a bother and take for granted that they have the right to be
there. Soon enough, they will be required to leave. Scream at the top of
your lungs outside someone's window for enough days in a row and you'll be
arrested. You can't just do whatever you want without also agreeing to
take responsibility for your actions.
Hutto
-=+=-=+=-=+=-=+=-=+=-=+=-=+=-=+=-=+=-=+=-=+=-=+=-=+=-=+=-
"I paint what I think, not what I see..." - Pablo Picasso
"You're not the boss of me!..." - J. A. Hutto (Pre age 3)
http://www2.msstate.edu/~jah10 + ja...@ra.msstate.edu
G*rd*n
nobody@localhost wrote:
| > Your desire to engage in a *commercial* activity -- which is regulated
| > by the state -- is not considered free speech.
|
| > -- THE ACT OF SELLING THE PAINTING ISN'T.
|
cei...@inav.net (Charles Eicher):
| Yes, this is the crux of the matter. This alleged group of "artists" is
| just a bunch of street vendors looking for legal protection for their
| hustle.
| ...
Actually, engaging in commerce doesn't completely
vitiate one's First-Amendment rights under contemporary
Constitutional law. It's sort of a boring, picky question,
though, more apt for misc.legal than rec.arts.fine.
The sociology of the issue may be more amusing. I notice a
good many of you are sufficiently bourgeoisified to identify
with the State and the police and to apply a class system to
the plastic arts: that is, there are the good artists who
presumably show in galleries and the bad scum-of-the-earth
artists who show on the streets. The determination is based
not on artistic content* but on economic position, self-
esteem, relative social position, and so forth. I'd much
rather go into this vision of the social structure of art
than pick around Constitutional law. Are any of you up for
it? The gist of the problem is to justify the class system
implicit in much of the foregoing discussion.
--
* I'm not, of course, implying that you all _don't_ have
systems for grading works of art, just that they don't
seem to have been brought to bear on this issue.
--
}"{ G*rd*n }"{ g...@panix.com }"{
Note: This mailbox generally cannot be reached from
sites which permit origination or relaying of junk mail.
Charles Eicher
> The sociology of the issue may be more amusing. I notice a
> good many of you are sufficiently bourgeoisified to identify
> with the State and the police and to apply a class system to
> the plastic arts: that is, there are the good artists who
> presumably show in galleries and the bad scum-of-the-earth
> artists who show on the streets.
You presume much, without any evidence.
I'm not some "good artist" who shows in a gallery, I show my art to
virtually noone but other artists. However, I have had plenty of run-ins
with self-proclaimed "artists" who are nothing but homeless panhandlers. I
used to encounter them daily, on the way in and out of my loft in Los
Angeles. One of my friends thought it was cute, when we went to Al's Bar
next door to my loft, and a panhandler said he was an artist and poet, and
offered to recite a poem if he'd "contribute" a quarter. I told him not to
give money to panhandlers, our neighborhood was overrun with homeless, and
visitors encouraging them with money made life hell for the residents. He
scoffed.. until he moved to San Francisco (1 block from Haight & Ashbury),
and had to deal a similar homeless problem on his front doorstep. He later
acknowledged that I was exactly correct. I told ya so..
I make only one distinction, between artists and non-artists. A homeless
person, using the guise of being an "artist" to hustle for money is NOT an
artist.
> ..The determination is based
> not on artistic content* but on economic position, self-
> esteem, relative social position, and so forth. I'd much
> rather go into this vision of the social structure of art
> than pick around Constitutional law. Are any of you up for
> it? The gist of the problem is to justify the class system
> implicit in much of the foregoing discussion.
I don't have to justify my opinions to anyone. I worked hard at crappy jobs
to pay the rent for my artists loft and art materials, it was difficult to
make enough money to sustain a situation where I could afford to work on my
own art. And I didn't have to accost people in public spaces to do it. And
it was doubly infuriating to have these beggars accosting me in front of my
own loft (and sometimes even yelling, begging for money up to my second
floor window, while I was working). If someone else is too lazy to go and
work for themselves, and wants to beg off others in public spaces, tough
shit. Get a job, like everyone else.
Ninguno
g...@panix.com (G*rd*n) wrote:
>nobody@localhost wrote:
>| > Your desire to engage in a *commercial* activity -- which is regulated
>| > by the state -- is not considered free speech.
>|
>| > While the content of a painting would be considered free speech issue
>| > -- THE ACT OF SELLING THE PAINTING ISN'T.
>|
>| > Repeat chorus.
>
>cei...@inav.net (Charles Eicher):
>| Yes, this is the crux of the matter. This alleged group of "artists" is
>| just a bunch of street vendors looking for legal protection for their
>| hustle.
>| ...
>
>Actually, engaging in commerce doesn't completely
>vitiate one's First-Amendment rights under contemporary
>Constitutional law.
So what's your point?
The two issues, contrary to attempts here to link them, are completely
unrelated. The First Amendment has nothing to do with *commerce*.
> It's sort of a boring, picky question,
>though, more apt for misc.legal than rec.arts.fine.
No.
This isn't an arcane law issue... it's *quite* clear. The states have
to right to regulate commerce.
>The sociology of the issue may be more amusing
:) Yes, That it is.
>. I notice a
>good many of you are sufficiently bourgeoisified to identify
>with the State and the police
If by that not-so-veiled attempted insult, you mean that some of us
think the contention is, at best, horseshit, I'd say you were correct.
Anything other than that is simply demonstrating your personal bias
and ignorance.
> and to apply a class system to
>the plastic arts: that is, there are the good artists who
>presumably show in galleries and the bad scum-of-the-earth
>artists who show on the streets.
Yehp. It would seem you've launched into a silly-ass, political
diatribe.
> The determination is based
>not on artistic content* but on economic position, self-
>esteem, relative social position, and so forth.
You know, it really does take a lot of fucking gall for you to use an
argument like this to try to support a bunch of people who are trying
to *SELL* paintings and don't want to pay for a permit.
The reason they are out there is to part people with their *money*.
That means that they are *capitalists*. The real problem is that
their paintings are preceived to be crap and people don't buy them at
a rate high enough for the alleged "artists" to pay for a
permit/license.
Maybe it's time they considered a career change? Uemployment is low,
this would be a good time to do it.
> I'd much
>rather go into this vision of the social structure of art
>than pick around Constitutional law.
Um, probably because you don't have the chance of a snowball-in-hell
of convincing anyone that this is a constitutional law issue.
> Are any of you up for
>it? The gist of the problem is to justify the class system
>implicit in much of the foregoing discussion.
Laughing-out-loud
This has nothing to do with a "class system". It's about a bunch of
whining babies who can't get their way and don't want to work to pay
for their hobby.
>--
>* I'm not, of course, implying that you all _don't_ have
>systems for grading works of art, just that they don't
>seem to have been brought to bear on this issue.
Oh, sure they have. It's quite apparent. In general, the shitty
paintings are produced by the people doing the most complaining about
irrelevant issues.
Please note the "In general" -- that doesn't mean everyone who is
complaining is a poor painter -- and it certainly doesn't imply that
everyone who makes money at it is a good painter :-)
G*rd*n
nobody@localhost:
| >| > Your desire to engage in a *commercial* activity -- which is regulated
| >| > by the state -- is not considered free speech.
| >|
| >| > While the content of a painting would be considered free speech issue
| >| > -- THE ACT OF SELLING THE PAINTING ISN'T.
| >|
| >| > Repeat chorus.
cei...@inav.net (Charles Eicher):
| >| Yes, this is the crux of the matter. This alleged group of "artists" is
| >| just a bunch of street vendors looking for legal protection for their
| >| hustle.
| >| ...
g...@panix.com (G*rd*n) wrote:
| >Actually, engaging in commerce doesn't completely
| >vitiate one's First-Amendment rights under contemporary
| >Constitutional law.
nobody@localhost:
| So what's your point?
|
| The two issues, contrary to attempts here to link them, are completely
| unrelated. The First Amendment has nothing to do with *commerce*.
g...@panix.com (G*rd*n) wrote:
| > It's sort of a boring, picky question,
| >though, more apt for misc.legal than rec.arts.fine.
nobody@localhost:
| No.
|
| This isn't an arcane law issue... it's *quite* clear. The states have
| to right to regulate commerce.
In other words, the states can shut down a newspaper or a
book publisher because they're engaging in commerce -- the
newspapers and books are sold for money, and may include
advertising. I don't think so.
As I said, it's a boring, picky issue. The states can
regulate commerce, even when it involves free speech, but
they can't regulate it destructively. It appears you don't
know the law and cases very well, and I don't either, so
it's effectively "arcane" rather than "*quite* clear."
But you can prove me wrong -- go ahead and give the
citations. I'll be impressed and agree that the
Constitution _does_ give the states the power to wipe out
free expression where trade is involved. My interest here
is in the class-war issue rather than the Constitutional
issue (which I'll go into in another article), and it won't
be the first time permission for class war was found in the
Constitution. I just happen to think you class warriors
are wrong on this aspect of it.
Benny Shaboy
Ninguno wrote:
>
> g...@panix.com (G*rd*n) wrote:
>
> > I'd much
> >rather go into this vision of the social structure of art
> >than pick around Constitutional law.
>
> Um, probably because you don't have the chance of a snowball-in-hell
> of convincing anyone that this is a constitutional law issue.
>
Ninguno, since you seem to be interested in legal issues and apparently
have a background in the field, you might be want to refer to the
following case:
Lederman et al v. City of New York 959089 United States Court of
Appeals,
Second Circuit. Decided Oct. 10, 1996.
You probably already know that NYC appealed to the Supreme Court, which
then denied cert so that the ruling of the 2nd Circuit stands as the
controlling interpretation of this issue.
Go for it,
Benny
slye
Ninguno
g...@panix.com (G*rd*n) wrote:
Curious -- why did you add the "so" to your final sentence above?
The local/state government can and does regulate the *sales* of the
businesses you mentioned above. The *content* is quite a different
matter.
Repeat after me, "the First Amendment does not give you the right to
sell anything."
>
>As I said, it's a boring, picky issue.
You must be talking about your nose.
> The states can
>regulate commerce, even when it involves free speech, but
>they can't regulate it destructively.
[laughing] "destructively"...?
The state -- which does have the right to regulate commerce -- can and
does close businesses. Happens all the time. Probably a good thing
it does.
> It appears you don't
>know the law and cases very well, and I don't either, so
>it's effectively "arcane" rather than "*quite* clear."
Well, I guess if you don't know anything about the law -- which you
were kind enough to admit -- it might seem "arcane" to *you*.
Curious, since you're obviously confused -- and just admitted to
ignorance -- what makes you feel your opinion is worth a shit?
>
>But you can prove me wrong -- go ahead and give the
>citations.
[Best laugh I've had in awhile]
Yo, Mr. Dumbass, it's *you* making the claims that the First Amendment
allows "artists" to make unregulated sales -- it's *your* job to
provide support for *your* claims.
Please provide a court case [not overturned] which concluded that this
is the case -- and please include it in your next post.
> I'll be impressed and agree that the
>Constitution _does_ give the states the power to wipe out
>free expression where trade is involved.
'Gotta give you credit for being persitent... dumb, but persistent.
Please provide support for your claim that *commerce* and the First
Amendment are interconnected.
> My interest here
>is in the class-war issue rather than the Constitutional
>issue (which I'll go into in another article), and it won't
>be the first time permission for class war was found in the
>Constitution. I just happen to think you class warriors
>are wrong on this aspect of it.
Well, you're entitled to your opinion.... however unfounded it might
be.
And if you want to discuss "class-war," take it to where someone gives
a shit about it -- say one of the socialism groups.
Ninguno
Benny Shaboy <sno...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>Ninguno wrote:
>>
>> g...@panix.com (G*rd*n) wrote:
>>
>> > I'd much
>> >rather go into this vision of the social structure of art
>> >than pick around Constitutional law.
>>
>Ninguno wrote:
>
>> Um, probably because you don't have the chance of a snowball-in-hell
>> of convincing anyone that this is a constitutional law issue.
>>
>
>Ninguno, since you seem to be interested in legal issues and apparently
>have a background in the field, you might be want to refer to the
>following case:
Please feel free post the details and explain how it gives anyone the
right to ignore state commerce regulations.
G*rd*n
And now, on to the class war....
g...@panix.com (G*rd*n) wrote:
| >The sociology of the issue may be more amusing
nobody@localhost (Ninguno)
| :) Yes, That it is.
g...@panix.com (G*rd*n) wrote:
| >. I notice a
| >good many of you are sufficiently bourgeoisified to identify
| >with the State and the police
nobody@localhost (Ninguno)
| If by that not-so-veiled attempted insult, you mean that some of us
| think the contention is, at best, horseshit, I'd say you were correct.
| Anything other than that is simply demonstrating your personal bias
| and ignorance.
Why is it an insult? I thought you were on the side
of regulation; I should think you'd be proud of your side
and its ideology.
g...@panix.com (G*rd*n) wrote:
| > and to apply a class system to
| >the plastic arts: that is, there are the good artists who
| >presumably show in galleries and the bad scum-of-the-earth
| >artists who show on the streets. The determination is based
| >not on artistic content* but on economic position, self-
| >esteem, relative social position, and so forth.
nobody@localhost (Ninguno)
| You know, it really does take a lot of fucking gall for you to use an
| argument like this to try to support a bunch of people who are trying
| to *SELL* paintings and don't want to pay for a permit.
|
| The reason they are out there is to part people with their *money*.
| That means that they are *capitalists*. The real problem is that
| their paintings are preceived to be crap and people don't buy them at
| a rate high enough for the alleged "artists" to pay for a
| permit/license. ...
I don't follow your reasoning here. First of all, engaging
in trade is not the equivalent of capitalism. But even so,
I don't see why you think engaging in capitalism or any
other voluntary economic practice _per_se_ vitiates
anyone's rights to public space or free expression. I
guess it's another mystery, like your finding your own
ideology insulting and your cite-free invocation of
Constitutional law. Oh, well....
--- da capo ---
g...@panix.com (G*rd*n) wrote:
| > The sociology of the issue may be more amusing. I notice a
| > good many of you are sufficiently bourgeoisified to identify
| > with the State and the police and to apply a class system to
| > the plastic arts: that is, there are the good artists who
| > presumably show in galleries and the bad scum-of-the-earth
| > artists who show on the streets.
cei...@inav.net (Charles Eicher):
| You presume much, without any evidence.
|
| I'm not some "good artist" who shows in a gallery, I show my art to
| virtually noone but other artists. However, I have had plenty of run-ins
| with self-proclaimed "artists" who are nothing but homeless panhandlers. I
| used to encounter them daily, on the way in and out of my loft in Los
| Angeles. One of my friends thought it was cute, when we went to Al's Bar
| next door to my loft, and a panhandler said he was an artist and poet, and
| offered to recite a poem if he'd "contribute" a quarter. I told him not to
| give money to panhandlers, our neighborhood was overrun with homeless, and
| visitors encouraging them with money made life hell for the residents. He
| scoffed.. until he moved to San Francisco (1 block from Haight & Ashbury),
| and had to deal a similar homeless problem on his front doorstep. He later
| acknowledged that I was exactly correct. I told ya so..
|
| I make only one distinction, between artists and non-artists. A homeless
| person, using the guise of being an "artist" to hustle for money is NOT an
| artist.
In other words, pretty much as I said, you distinguish between
"good" and "bad" (false) artists, not on the basis of quality
of work, "but on economic position, self-esteem, relative
social position, and so forth." One might add a certain sort
of Calvinistic earnestness about labor.
However, you haven't shown how you know that _all_ street
artists fall into the class of hustlers, thus depriving
them of their freedom of expression; and in any case, I
don't know what homelessness has to do with it. There are
plenty of people who work as earnestly as you who are
homeless, and plenty who do no work and have nice homes.
Your colleague ninguno, confused as he is, was careful to
admit that some street artists might be "real" artists,
and didn't even mention the crime of homelessness.
Shocking as this suggestion might be, you might want to
abandon a-priori Calvinism and consider some evidence in
this regard: a few of the artists on my web site gallery,
http://www.etaoin.com, are people I found selling art on
the street. Without looking at the _curricula_vitae_, can
you say which ones? Probably not. And who knows, some of
them may work hard, even though they have sold their work
on the streets!
g...@panix.com (G*rd*n) wrote:
| > ... The gist of the problem is to justify the class system
| > implicit in much of the foregoing discussion.
cei...@inav.net (Charles Eicher):
| I don't have to justify my opinions to anyone. ...
That's true. But if you're going to use State violence
to clear the streets of people you don't like, you might
want to do so, if for no other reason than to garner the
political support you'll need. However, I was only
throwing it out as a suggestion for discussion I thought
would be better than the Constitutional one, where you and
ninguno are presently six citations behind, at least.
Ninguno
g...@panix.com (G*rd*n) wrote:
>And now, on to the class war....
>
>g...@panix.com (G*rd*n) wrote:
>| >The sociology of the issue may be more amusing
>
>nobody@localhost (Ninguno)
>| :) Yes, That it is.
>
>g...@panix.com (G*rd*n) wrote:
>| >. I notice a
>| >good many of you are sufficiently bourgeoisified to identify
>| >with the State and the police
>
>nobody@localhost (Ninguno)
>| If by that not-so-veiled attempted insult, you mean that some of us
>| think the contention is, at best, horseshit, I'd say you were correct.
>| Anything other than that is simply demonstrating your personal bias
>| and ignorance.
>
>Why is it an insult?
Please note the use of the "attempted insult". It refers to your
obvious intent and my indifference to it.
> I thought you were on the side
>of regulation; I should think you'd be proud of your side
>and its ideology.
[laughing]
I am. That's why I used the clarification "attempted".
>
>g...@panix.com (G*rd*n) wrote:
>| > and to apply a class system to
>| >the plastic arts: that is, there are the good artists who
>| >presumably show in galleries and the bad scum-of-the-earth
>| >artists who show on the streets. The determination is based
>| >not on artistic content* but on economic position, self-
>| >esteem, relative social position, and so forth.
>
>nobody@localhost (Ninguno)
>| You know, it really does take a lot of fucking gall for you to use an
>| argument like this to try to support a bunch of people who are trying
>| to *SELL* paintings and don't want to pay for a permit.
>|
>| The reason they are out there is to part people with their *money*.
>| That means that they are *capitalists*. The real problem is that
>| their paintings are preceived to be crap and people don't buy them at
>| a rate high enough for the alleged "artists" to pay for a
>| permit/license. ...
>
>I don't follow your reasoning here. First of all, engaging
>in trade is not the equivalent of capitalism.
[rolling on the floor laughin' and crying]
Bullshit.
Did you manage to type that with a straight face? Face it, you're
just some money-grubbing schmuck -- no different than a corporate
raider except you didn't make as much money at it. That's what has
you pissed - other people made more money than you did.
> But even so,
>I don't see why you think engaging in capitalism or any
>other voluntary economic practice _per_se_ vitiates
>anyone's rights to public space or free expression.
Never said it did.
I did say that your right to free expression doesn't mean you can
engage in commerce without state regulation. I guess you're having a
problem understanding that.
> I
>guess it's another mystery, like your finding your own
>ideology insulting and your cite-free invocation of
>Constitutional law. Oh, well....
It's just like the mystery of not being able to understand that
freedom of expression doesn't mean you can engage in unregulated
commerce.
And as far as finding my own "ideology insulting," you haven't the
faintest fucking idea in the world of what I believe... recall that
the ACLU supported the KKK at times.
I do find your rather lame attempt to create something out of this
other than what it is rather amusing. Here you are, scum-sucking
capitalists -- trying to *sell* stuff to people in front of a museum
-- and still trying to think of yourselfs as something other than
money-grubby capitalists :-) -- and convince other people that this is
about "art".
I'll bet you laugh all the way to the bank when someone believes it.
Balance ignored as Mr. Eicher seems rational and quite capable of
responding if he wishes.
By the way, since you insist on making this a political issue, I've
taken the liberty of cross-posting your crap where there are people
who would probably like to discuss it with you.
Have a nice day.
slye
Ninguno wrote:
> >> Um, probably because you don't have the chance of a snowball-in-hell
> >> of convincing anyone that this is a constitutional law issue.
> right to ignore state commerce regulations.
This information comes from OPENAIR-MARKET NET:
> The U.S. Supreme Court 6/2/97 denied the Giuliani Administration's
appeal of the 2nd Circuit
> Federal Appeals Court decision in Lederman et al v. City of New York. The ruling had affirmed that
> street artists are protected by the First Amendment and can sell their art on City streets without a license.
> The 2nd Circuit Federal Appeals Court ruling unambiguously states: "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 full First Amendment protection....the City's requirement that appellants be
> licensed in order to sell their artwork in public spaces constitutes an unconstitutional infringement of their First Amendment rights...
Ninguno
slye <sctu...@NSsprintmail.com> wrote:
>Ninguno wrote:
>
>> >> Um, probably because you don't have the chance of a snowball-in-hell
>> >> of convincing anyone that this is a constitutional law issue.
>
>> Please feel free post the details and explain how it gives anyone the
>> right to ignore state commerce regulations.
>
>This information comes from OPENAIR-MARKET NET:
Yes. I know.
>
> > The U.S. Supreme Court 6/2/97 denied the Giuliani Administration's
>appeal of the 2nd Circuit
>> Federal Appeals Court decision in Lederman et al v. City of New York. The ruling had affirmed that
>> street artists are protected by the First Amendment and can sell their art on City streets without a license.
Actually, I believe what it decided was that the license method that
was put in place unfairly restricted them. That's why they are still
being put in jail - last I heard.
>
>> The 2nd Circuit Federal Appeals Court ruling unambiguously states: "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 full First Amendment protection....the City's requirement that appellants be
>> licensed in order to sell their artwork in public spaces constitutes an unconstitutional infringement of their First Amendment rights...
Q. where has that particular decision gotten the "street artists"?
A. not far, in fact they now have less freedom than they previously
did.
"knowledge is not needed that power does not rule"
Let me give you a rather pointed example: If one is permitted to
claim that the first amendment permits one to ignore the states's
right to regulate commerce etc., what is to keep some other group, say
the abortion rights people from using that same ruling to effectively
close abortion clinics?
A. nothing.
Paint a couple abortion paintings -- viola! -- they're now "artists"
and permitted to ignore other people's rights. Pick your particular
hot-button group, what's to stop them?
Do you like the precedent you're trying to set -- knowing that it will
probably be used against you at some point in the future?
Mr. Lederman is having some fun and becoming something of a local
celebrity. Whose "cause" -- other than his own -- has he helped? You
see this is really about money/power - not art. Mr. Lederman has
increased his at the cost of the others involved.
As it now stands, the "street artists" have undoubtedly alienated a
lot more potential customers than they have won converts to their
cause.
First rule in business: thy shalt not piss off thy customers.
G*rd*n
nob...@localhost.com:
| ...
| Paint a couple abortion paintings -- viola! -- they're now "artists"
| and permitted to ignore other people's rights. Pick your particular
| hot-button group, what's to stop them?
You're missing a very big step in your reasoning: someone
showing or selling a painting on the streets is not, by
doing so, interfering with anyone else's freedom.
It is Giuliani's cops, with folks like you and Charles
cheering them on, who are violently interfering with my
freedom and injuring my interests, as well as those of the
artists doing the showing and the selling.
G*rd*n
| ... [ It's Giuliani, etc., ]
G*rd*n:
| > who are violently interfering with my
| >freedom and injuring my interests, as well as those of the
| >artists doing the showing and the selling.
nobody@localhost:
| Your "interests" do not permit you to ignore the law; even when you
| "know" it's unjust. You may intentionally violate the law; but when
| you do so, you should be prepared to accept the consequences of your
| actions.
Yes, of course. What I was talking about was the sociology:
your desire that the law violate my rights and injure my
interests. Because the law is the law doesn't make it
right, good, or desirable. (Or Constitutional; but with
Giuliani, that probably doesn't matter.) Do you have
anything to say to justify your support of this aggression,
or do you just like it for its own sake?
| Should abortion protestors -- who believe you are murdering children
| -- be allowed to ignore the law?
As far as I'm concerned, they can do what they want as
long as they don't interfere with anyone's rights. You'll
generally find that what the anti-choice folks want to
do is use State force to prevent abortion; they're as
enthusiastic about the law as anyone. However, the
comparison completely irrelevant. Anti-choice anti-
abortionists are not concerned with displaying art
works and conducting trade in public spaces.
Ninguno
g...@panix.com (G*rd*n) wrote:
>nob...@localhost.com:
>| ...
>| Paint a couple abortion paintings -- viola! -- they're now "artists"
>| and permitted to ignore other people's rights. Pick your particular
>| hot-button group, what's to stop them?
>| ...
>
>You're missing a very big step in your reasoning:
Not really.
> someone
>showing or selling a painting on the streets is not, by
>doing so, interfering with anyone else's freedom.
Ignore for the moment the protests which have interfered with many
people's rights -- *assume* what you say is true, it's not relevant.
You see, that's the interesting thing about precedents: they are often
used in a manner not considered by the original participants.
Once you conclude that the First Amendment overrules the states's
right to regulate commerce etc., that decision can be used by other
people/companies to do things with which *you* don't agree.
>
>It is Giuliani's cops, with folks like you and Charles
>cheering them on,
I freely admit that I think Giuliani made a good decision, and that
the "artists" involved have made a very poor decision. One which they
will probably regret (even more) in the future.
When you piss on Giulani's neck, don't expect him to believe you when
you tell him it's raining -- or be happy when he discovers what you've
done.
The arguments you're making have nothing to do with art. They are
about money, the egos of the participants, and [possibly] the
misguided notion on the part of some of the "artists" that they are
"fighting the good fight" against the "system".
You do have the right to indulge in self-destructive behavior -- don't
expect much sympathy when you don't like the repercussions.
> who are violently interfering with my
>freedom and injuring my interests, as well as those of the
>artists doing the showing and the selling.
Your "interests" do not permit you to ignore the law; even when you
"know" it's unjust. You may intentionally violate the law; but when
you do so, you should be prepared to accept the consequences of your
actions.
Should abortion protestors -- who believe you are murdering children
.com
g...@panix.com (G*rd*n) wrote:
>| ... [ It's Giuliani, etc., ]
>
>G*rd*n:
>| > who are violently interfering with my
>| >freedom and injuring my interests, as well as those of the
>| >artists doing the showing and the selling.
>
>nobody@localhost:
>| Your "interests" do not permit you to ignore the law; even when you
>| "know" it's unjust. You may intentionally violate the law; but when
>| you do so, you should be prepared to accept the consequences of your
>| actions.
>
>Yes, of course. What I was talking about was the sociology:
>your desire that the law violate my rights and injure my
>interests.
You seem to have a reading comprehension problem....
Your "rights" do not permit you to violate the law.
> Because the law is the law doesn't make it
>right, good, or desirable.
Your opinion of a specific law is quite irrelevant. You do have the
right to attempt to have any law overturned, you do not have the right
to painlessly disobey it.
> (Or Constitutional; but with
>Giuliani, that probably doesn't matter.) Do you have
>anything to say to justify your support of this aggression,
>or do you just like it for its own sake?
[laughing]
If you break the law, don't piss and moan when your ass ends up in
jail. Be a man, accept the responsibility of your social
disobedience.
If you want to discuss social/philospohical issue of the "justness" of
a particular political system, you're posting in the wrong place.
>
>| Should abortion protestors -- who believe you are murdering children
>| -- be allowed to ignore the law?
>
>As far as I'm concerned, they can do what they want as
>long as they don't interfere with anyone's rights.
This isn't a "rights" question. It's a question of whether or not
they should be allowed to break the law like the "street artists" are
doing.
It's a yes or no answer. If you believe the "street artists" should
be allowed to break the law, the same standard has to be applied to
everyone. Even when you don't like them.
> You'll
>generally find that what the anti-choice folks want to
>do is use State force to prevent abortion;
They look at it as preventing murder. Should they be allowed to
violate the law -- for something the see as far more serious than some
shyster "street artists" grubbing for money?
> they're as
>enthusiastic about the law as anyone. However, the
>comparison completely irrelevant.
No. It isn't.
There are two groups which want to violate existing laws. If you
permit one to use the First Amendment to do it, you also must apply
the same standard to the other group.
> Anti-choice anti-
>abortionists are not concerned with displaying art
>works and conducting trade in public spaces.
[laughing]
Your *assuming* that the "street artists" do. Many people would
disagree.
And your assumption is irrelevant. All they have to do is state that
as their intent -- after all, lots of "art" has really been social
commentary.
Since they are not charging for what they do, at least one has to
recognize that they are more committed to their goal than the "street
artists" -- who are really just scum-bag capitalists grubbing for more
money. And if they simply "displayed" their "art" -- they couldn't be
arrested for violating commerce regulations.
G*rd*n
|
| >| ... [ It's Giuliani, etc., ]
G*rd*n:
| >| > who are violently interfering with my
| >| >freedom and injuring my interests, as well as those of the
| >| >artists doing the showing and the selling.
nobody@localhost:
| >| Your "interests" do not permit you to ignore the law; even when you
| >| "know" it's unjust. You may intentionally violate the law; but when
| >| you do so, you should be prepared to accept the consequences of your
| >| actions.
g...@panix.com (G*rd*n) wrote:
| >Yes, of course. What I was talking about was the sociology:
| >your desire that the law violate my rights and injure my
| >interests.
| You seem to have a reading comprehension problem....
|
| Your "rights" do not permit you to violate the law. ...
Who's got the reading problem? In the previous paragraph I
agreed that the law equals the law. As it happens, my
rights, as defined in the Constitution, _do_ permit me to
violate unconstitutional laws, but since you didn't want to
engage this issue -- you declined to post any citations in
support of your view -- I thought we might as well go on to
your desire that the law -- State force -- deprive me and
others of freedom and injure our interests. Intoning a
mantra about your belief the absolute supremacy of the
State was redundant; the question was why you desire that
the State perform this particular form of aggression against
harmless persons. Now, are you going to engage the question
or recite the mantra yet again?
Your equation of people displaying and selling art in a
public space with anti-abortionist terrorism and murder is
absurd. Do you really want to say that all violations of
all laws are equivalent? I agree that this sort of abject
submission to authority is consistent with Giuliani's
police-state politics, but I'm surprised any of his
supporters would openly own up to it. You're making my
case for me.
Ninguno
g...@panix.com (G*rd*n) wrote:
>|
>| >| ... [ It's Giuliani, etc., ]
>
>G*rd*n:
>| >| > who are violently interfering with my
>| >| >freedom and injuring my interests, as well as those of the
>| >| >artists doing the showing and the selling.
>
>nobody@localhost:
>| >| Your "interests" do not permit you to ignore the law; even when you
>| >| "know" it's unjust. You may intentionally violate the law; but when
>| >| you do so, you should be prepared to accept the consequences of your
>| >| actions.
>
>g...@panix.com (G*rd*n) wrote:
>| >Yes, of course. What I was talking about was the sociology:
>| >your desire that the law violate my rights and injure my
>| >interests.
>
>nob...@localhost.com:
>| You seem to have a reading comprehension problem....
>|
>| Your "rights" do not permit you to violate the law. ...
>
>Who's got the reading problem?
[laughing]
It would seem rather obvious that you do.
> In the previous paragraph I
>agreed that the law equals the law. As it happens, my
>rights, as defined in the Constitution, _do_ permit me to
>violate unconstitutional laws
Your rights, as you see them, do not allow you to violate a law.
>, but since you didn't want to
>engage this issue
[laughing]
By this, I assume you mean that I don't care what you think and refuse
to be drawn into a pointless preceived 'rights" "issue"....?
> -- you declined to post any citations in
>support of your view --
Pot....... kettle...... black....... :)
There is no question about the fact that the state has the right to
enforce even "unjust" laws. Your only option is to see that it's
changed.
> I thought we might as well go on to
>your desire that the law -- State force -- deprive me and
>others of freedom and injure our interests.
Probably a waste of time also :-) -- as I have never said it was "my
desire".
I'm simply pointing out that you're full of shit, want to break a law,
and don't want to accept the consequences of your actions. Pretty
immature however you look at it.
> Intoning a
>mantra about your belief the absolute supremacy of the
>State was redundant;
The state does have the right to enforce laws that you don't agree
with. Happens all the time.
> the question was why you desire that
>the State perform this particular form of aggression against
>harmless persons. Now, are you going to engage the question
>or recite the mantra yet again?
I guess you just don't get it, do you?
I really don't give a fuck about your lame-ass philosophical
discussion :)
>
>Your equation of people displaying and selling art in a
>public space with anti-abortionist terrorism and murder is
>absurd.
Possibly to you :-)
They both would like to use the First Amendment to break the law.
Both groups claim that they are right. At least they're not in it for
the money :-)
> Do you really want to say that all violations of
>all laws are equivalent?
In the sense that if you violate a law you should be prepared to
accept the responsibility for it, yes.
> I agree that this sort of abject
>submission to authority is consistent with Giuliani's
>police-state politics, but I'm surprised any of his
>supporters would openly own up to it.
[laughing]
I'm not a Giuliani supporter :-)
However, in this instance, he is correct in that he can enforce the
law. Deal with it.
And if by "police-state politics" you mean that I believe the state
has the right to throw your ass in jail when you break the law, can't
argue with that :-) It would seem that you can't either :-)
> You're making my
>case for me.
[laughing]
You have no case. You're just some whining dumbass who is pissed
because his particular group isn't permitted to break the law. If you
really had convictions and a set of balls, you'd be out in the street
protesting now instead of running your mouth in here.
It certainly would be more useful in acomplishing your ends than what
you're doing at the moment.
Basically, put up or shut-the-fuck-up. If you really believe the crap
you are saying, go *do* something instead of flapping your jaws,
\_/-\//.3|?
G*rd*n
nobody@localhost:
| ...
| you are saying, go *do* something instead of flapping your jaws,
| \_/-\//.3|?
Uh-oh. Is that a fuse or a stack overflow?
N
In article <3513ddad...@news.mindspring.com>, nobody@localhost wrote:
> > You're making my
> >case for me.
>
> [laughing]
>
> You have no case. You're just some whining dumbass who is pissed
> because his particular group isn't permitted to break the law. If you
> really had convictions and a set of balls, you'd be out in the street
> protesting now instead of running your mouth in here.
>
> It certainly would be more useful in acomplishing your ends than what
> you're doing at the moment.
>
> Basically, put up or shut-the-fuck-up. If you really believe the crap
> you are saying, go *do* something instead of flapping your jaws,
> \_/-\//.3|?
It takes equal balls and convinction to sustain reasoned argumentation
particularly with a rude and insulting opponent (especially against one
resorting to ever increasing personal insults and name calling
proportionate to ground lost). The conviction and balls to oppose
injustice in a public forum is part of the beauty of our republic and the
quality of citizenship it encourages.
Bravo G*rd*n!!
-N.
--
N
To reach me, remove _xxx from my address.
Ninguno
redi...@earthlink.net_xxx (N) wrote:
>In article <3513ddad...@news.mindspring.com>, nobody@localhost wrote:
>
>> > You're making my
>> >case for me.
>>
>> [laughing]
>>
>> You have no case. You're just some whining dumbass who is pissed
>> because his particular group isn't permitted to break the law. If you
>> really had convictions and a set of balls, you'd be out in the street
>> protesting now instead of running your mouth in here.
>>
>> It certainly would be more useful in acomplishing your ends than what
>> you're doing at the moment.
>>
>> Basically, put up or shut-the-fuck-up. If you really believe the crap
>> you are saying, go *do* something instead of flapping your jaws,
>> \_/-\//.3|?
>
>
>It takes equal balls and convinction to sustain reasoned argumentation
[laughing]
What "reasoned argumentation"?
Please argue with "The state has to right to enforce even laws which
you feel to be unjust" -- and also note that I really don't care how
you *feel* about it.
The fact that someone doesn't like a law is completely irrelevant.
You have two legitimate choices: work to have the law changed or
accept it. You may also break the law. However, when you do, please
be ready to accept the consequences of your civil disobedience.
>particularly with a rude and insulting opponent (especially against one
>resorting to ever increasing personal insults and name calling
You know, we can't all be as fucking nice as you are :-)
It's just something you'll have to cope with... the unwashed masses :)
I personally feel it to be "rude" for off-topic crap to be posted in
here... and... and... well... I just wanted to express my feelings
about it. You know, I just a touchy-feely sort of guy and like to
express my feelings.
>proportionate to ground lost).
[laughing my ass off]
Please feel free to refute the point listed above.
> The conviction and balls to oppose
>injustice in a public forum is part of the beauty of our republic and the
>quality of citizenship it encourages.
Thanks! It's really nice of you to say that about me :>)
As I said, if the people who are posting this crap had any balls,
they'd be out *doing* something -- as opposed to whining.
And "police state" is pretty amusing coming from a bunch who think
that means not being allowed to ignore whatever laws they wish. It's
a *REALLY* good sign that the poster is completely fucking clueless
and has probably can't locate a police state on a map -- let alone
ever have been in one.
A police state is when the black car comes to your door and takes you
away for an "interview" -- during/after which you admit to things you
didn't do and you also implicate your wife / children / neighbors /
people you never met -- knowing that it will cause them to also be
"interviewed".
A police state is where they crush you with tank or simply shoot you
for protesting -- as opposed to arresting, releasing, and fining you
-- all done by people who "know" what is "just" and are free to ignore
the laws.
Laws exists to protect us from criminals and people who know that
they "know" what is "just". The former are much less of a threat than
the latter.
G*rd*n
nobody@localhost:
| [laughing]
|
| What "reasoned argumentation"?
Just because _you_ don't see it doesn't mean it isn't there.
Others do -- which was the point. Continue to chase your
tail if you like.
Ninguno
g...@panix.com (G*rd*n) wrote:
>nobody@localhost:
>| [laughing]
>|
>| What "reasoned argumentation"?
>| ...
>
>Just because _you_ don't see it doesn't mean it isn't there.
Yeah. Sure. Whatever.
>Others do -- which was the point. Continue to chase your
>tail if you like.
[laughing]
I'm sure you could still find people who agree that the earth is flat
- and their agreement would prove just as much as someone agreeing
with you... that being, nothing.
Please refute:
" The state has the right to enforce laws -- even those which
someone might feel to be unjust."
The problem you have is that you can't put forth a rational argument
as to why the above statement isn't true.
Observation: next time, before you guys decide to go piss off the
mayor, think about it. It's quite possible that you're not half as
clever as you think you are
Suggestion: if you are actually interested in art, I'd suggest you try
a more conciliatory approach to the issue. Guiliani isn't
unreasonable -- like everyone else, he just doesn't like people
fucking with him. When you acknowledge who's running the city, you'll
do better.
G*rd*n
nobody@localhost:
| >| [laughing]
| ...
| [laughing]
| ...
| Please refute:
|
| " The state has the right to enforce laws -- even those which
| someone might feel to be unjust."
|
| The problem you have is that you can't put forth a rational argument
| as to why the above statement isn't true.
It went past you while you were laughing. Since everyone
else who was interested seems to have gotten it, we've
probably done as well as we can for the moment.
| Observation: next time, before you guys decide to go piss off the
| mayor, think about it. It's quite possible that you're not half as
| clever as you think you are
|
| Suggestion: if you are actually interested in art, I'd suggest you try
| a more conciliatory approach to the issue. Guiliani isn't
| unreasonable -- like everyone else, he just doesn't like people
| fucking with him. When you acknowledge who's running the city, you'll
| do better.
I don't think Giuliani is the kind of authority you're
familiar with -- the kind you suck up to, and then they're
nice to you. Giuliani seems to genuinely enjoy kicking
people around for its own sake, and he's found that's
politically rewarding, so he's going to keep doing it.
The artists who were selling art on the streets weren't
fucking with Giuliani -- they were just _there_, a target
of opportunity, like the squeegee men, the visible
homeless, people who give away food, and so forth.
About the only possible strategy for the moment is
resistance in the courts; if there's too much trouble,
Giuliani may pick on someone else. Eventually, he'll pick
on the wrong target, leave office for greater things, or
drop dead, and we'll move on to the next official thug.
Ninguno
g...@panix.com (G*rd*n) wrote:
>
>| Please refute:
>|
>| " The state has the right to enforce laws -- even those which
>| someone might feel to be unjust."
>|
>| The problem you have is that you can't put forth a rational argument
>| as to why the above statement isn't true.
>
>It went past you while you were laughing.
Feel free to point it out :-)
> Since everyone
>else who was interested seems to have gotten it, we've
>probably done as well as we can for the moment.
[small laugh]
In spite of many explicit promptings from me for you to refute the
above statement, you haven't. Why is that?
In case you were wondering, yes, it was a rhetorical question :)
>
>| Observation: next time, before you guys decide to go piss off the
>| mayor, think about it. It's quite possible that you're not half as
>| clever as you think you are
>|
>| Suggestion: if you are actually interested in art, I'd suggest you try
>| a more conciliatory approach to the issue. Guiliani isn't
>| unreasonable -- like everyone else, he just doesn't like people
>| fucking with him. When you acknowledge who's running the city, you'll
>| do better.
>
>I don't think Giuliani is the kind of authority you're
>familiar with -- the kind you suck up to, and then they're
>nice to you.
I'm afraid this is too subtle of an insult for me to understand :)
> Giuliani seems to genuinely enjoy kicking
>people around for its own sake, and he's found that's
>politically rewarding, so he's going to keep doing it.
Assume for the moment what you say is true. Makes you look pretty
damn dumb for pissing him off, eh?
>The artists who were selling art on the streets weren't
>fucking with Giuliani -- they were just _there_, a target
>of opportunity, like the squeegee men, the visible
>homeless, people who give away food, and so forth.
Ah, at last your real point emerges. Like I thought, this has
absolutely nothing to do with art.. it's about a leftist social
agenda.
And you're pissed because Giuliani -- and a majority of the people in
NYC -- doesn't/don't agree with your grand idea of humanity.
And since you couldn't win at the ballot box, you're trying to use the
courts to impose your agenda... and you fucked up at that. Well, I
guess you just lost all the way around.
>About the only possible strategy for the moment is
>resistance in the courts; if there's too much trouble,
>Giuliani may pick on someone else.
The thing you fail to understand is that a lot of the people who
oppose your ideas do so on philosophical grounds -- not because
they're shallow or evil.
> Eventually, he'll pick
>on the wrong target, leave office for greater things, or
>drop dead, and we'll move on to the next official thug.
Since this has nothing to do with art and it seems obvious that you're
just using some poor dumbass "artists" for your political purposes,
this thread doesn't belong here. My suggestion would be for you to
use one of the political groups which enjoy screaming at one another.