Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout3/18/2015 - STAFF REPORTS - 00 Excerpts Taken from http://www.buskersadvocates.org/saalegal.html#saall (Document edited to for relevance) This is a copy of my legal research concerning street performances and is offered as a reference tool only...These cases give First Amendment protection to street performances including amplified speech and accepting contributions. The most important court cases on street performances are Goldstein v.Town of Nantucket.477 F.Supp..606, (1979); Davenport v Alexandria.VA 683 F2d 853 (1983).710 F2d 148 (1983).748 F2d 208 (1984);and Friedrich v. Chicago 619 F.Supp., 1129.(D.C.Ill 1985)(The last case concerning the Chicago ordinance time and place restrictions were vacated).Two new cases Turley vs NYC was favorably decided in May 1997,including a substantial financial settlement 988 F.Supp,667&675 (1997). See Turley vs NYC US 2nd Cir Appeal 98-7114(1999) web site decision: http://www.tourolaw.edu/2ndCircuit/January99/98-71141.html.Court case decided in December 2001 with ACLU support protects street performances on Kalakaua Ave. in Waikiki,Hawaii.Attorneys fees and court costs of$200,000 was awarded to the street artists(Decision still not published Williams,and all vs City and County of Honolulu,First Cir. Ct.of the State of Hawaii,civ No.00-1-2039-06 VLC).Attorney Paul Messing won law$27,500 settlement for flutist Felix Wilkins against the Philadelphia in 2007 for arrest on corner of 18th and Chestnut Streets(U.S.District Judge Juan R.Sanchez approved the settlement). City agreed performances are legal. Details: http://www.2oodic2oodic.com/... Michael Berger,otherwise known as Magic Mike,had been performing at the Seattle Center since the 1980's where he twisted balloon creations and performed magic tricks for donations.Since 1978,the Seattle Center had 5 rules for regulating street performers.Berger was ejected multiple times for violating these rules,and in 1996 sued the city of Seattle,stating that the rules violate both the 1 st and 14th amendment.Details at his web site:hUp://funandmagic.com/perforrnersrights.htmI • In 2003 Berger filed a lawsuit,complaining that the rules were unconstitutional. He was granted summary judgement and in 2005 was awarded$22,000 in damages.Federal Court Case No.CV 03- 3238Z-Western Washington District Court Judge James Robart--with legal judgement in April 22, 2005 for Magic Mike. • The city of Seattle appealed,stating that the rules legally regulated the time,place,and manner of the performers. • On January 9,2008 a 2 to 1 vote overturned the previous decision made in 2005 and the regulations were ruled to be constitutional.To see this case Berger v.Seattle,512 F.3d 582(9th Cir.2008)click HERE o See Seattle Post Intelligencer article: "Seattle Center limits on street performers OK'd-But critics call the appeals court ruling a blow to free speech." By PAUL SHUKOVSKY http://seattlepi nwsource.com/local/346757 magicmikel0.html • Bergei s attorney,Elena Garella,asked the appeals court to reconsider this decision based on the strength Judge Benzon's opinion. Ber zon's vote was in the minority on the 2 to 1 vote,but she wrote a 50 page opinion asserting the inexcusable right to free speech,particularly in public parks. • The case was reheard en banc on June 24,2009.Out of 11 judges,8 ruled that the regulations were unconstitutional,overturning the decision once again.Berger v.Seattle case 05-35752 o To see this case click at Federal Court web site: http://www.ca9.uscourts.itoy/datastore/opinions/2009/06/24/05-35752,pd o To see copy of official PDF from this web site click HERE o American Law Daily had nice article about lawyers: Jttp://amlawdaily,tyMpad.com/amlawdaily/2009/06/davis-wripht-helps-magic-street-performer- in-first-amendment-case.html o Article in Seattle Times: Appeals court punctures Seattle's attempt to regulate balloon man--The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals put a pin in Seattle's efforts to regulate balloon artist "Magic Mike" Berger and other street performers at the Seattle Center,reversing an earlier decision to find that the center's rules violate free speech.By Mike Carter http://seattletirnes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2009379403 webbusker24.html More Details at his web site: http://funandmagic.com/performersrights.html Also additional details on this web site: Seattle Page Venice Beach Boardwalk musician legal battle-Judge blocks Venice boardwalk lottery permit system and ban of amplification -October 21,2010 • -Court Injunction: vbbc.files.wordpress.com/2010/10/venice-dowd-injunction.doc • http;//articles.latimes.com/2010/oct/27/local/la-me-venice-vendors-20101027 ca3I I at Ze is; Pt)j&" & C0M1H'CU-r AMY • Las Vegas police settle lawsuit with street performer by COLTON LOCHHEAD,LAS VEGAS REVIEW-JOURNAL, April 22,2013 http://m.reviewioumal.com/news/crime-courts/las-vegas-police-settle-lawsuit-street-performer Three years after a confrontation between Las Vegas police and a costumed street performer in front of The Venetian spawned a lawsuit,the Police Department has agreed to settle with Zorro for$105,000.Case support by ACLU Nevada. Another major win by two performers,Fred Walker a sax player and Nick Pence a banjo player of The Thin Dimes with support from ACLU of Eastern Missouri Challenge the Audition System,High Permit Fees and Performance Location Restrictions in Saint Louis,MO in May 2013 • Preliminary Injunction written Memorandum and Order issued July 30,2013,by United States District Judge Catherine D.Perry HERE Amplification: New Orleans street performers in Lionhart v.Foster 100 F.Supp.2d 383 (E.D.La.,1999)LEXIS 17059 (Court Opinion PDF)won federal case that declared sound level of 55db to be unconstitutional.The judge refereed to cases which gave amplification First Amendment protection and cited cases in Houston: Reeves v.McConn,631 F.2d at 381 n. 1.The court noted that"there is probably no more appropriate place for reasonably amplified speech than the streets and sidewalks of a downtown business district." District of Columbia Circuit struck down a federal regulation which prohibited the playing of musical instruments at a level higher than "60 decibels measured on the A-weighted scale at 50 feet." (Doe, 968 F.2d at 89-90,The last case also included the playing of drums in front of the White House)New Orleans artists also received a preliminary injunction restraining order on May 31, 1996 when the city tried to impose a inaudible at 25 foot requirement Case 96-1869(E.D.La.,1996) ROSELYN LIONHART,et al versus CITY OF NEW ORLEANS,et al;1996 U.S.Dist.LEXIS 18903 (December 13, 1996). Court case which discusses and gives full First Amendment protection to amplified music.Casey v.City of Newport 308 Fad 106.110(1st.Cir.2002) Google Scholar Text,Law Resource Text ...amplifiers are also used to create new "messages" that cannot be conveyed without amplification equipment. Amplification enables performers to boost the relative volume of quiet instruments,such as the bass and the lower registers of the human voice, [*291 and to adjust the tonal qualities of voices and instruments without necessarily increasing the overall volume of the performance. Much modem music simply cannot be performed without the use of amplifiers.Thus the ban on amplification has a direct and immediate effect on the expression at issue.The record therefore does not support the district court's conclusion that appellants "could still convey their. . .messages" without amplification.Without amplification,some of the messages are not conveyed at all. CONCUR: McAULIFFE,District Judge(concurring) In the world of modem music, "amplified" is not synonymous with "made louder." Electronic musical instruments can only produce sound through a process of electronic amplification,but those instruments are not inherently louder than acoustic or unamplified instruments.A modem synthesizer,for example,can make sound only by means of electronic amplification,yet that amplified instrument easily and faithfully mimics the sounds produced by a wide range of acoustic instruments such as pianos,harps,flutes,acoustic guitars,violins,drums,etc.Moreover,the synthesizer can reproduce those musical sounds as softly and quietly as desired.Yet,the synthesizer falls within the City's ban.An electronically amplified Aeolian Harp can produce the same "soft floating witchery of sound" as nature's own,but the volume is more easily controlled on the amplified version. Venice Beach Boardwalk musician legal battle- US District Judge Pregerson blocks Venice boardwalk lottery permit system and amplification ban in Dowd and all vs City of Los Angles-October 21,2010 • District Court Injunction opinion: vbbc.files.wordpress.com/2010/10/venice-dowd-injunction.doc • Los Angels Times article: http://articles.latimes.com/2010/oct/27/local/la-me-venice-vendors-20101027 "Other courts have struck down amplified sound restrictions less sweeping than the total ban on amplified sound on the Venice Boardwalk.See,e.g.,Deegan v.City of Ithaca,444 F.3d 135 (2d Cir. 2006)(holding noise regulation as applied to prohibit any sound that could be heard 25 feet from its source in downtown pedestrian mall was not narrowly tailored);Doe,968 F.2d at 89 (holding regulation prohibiting operating an audio device in a manner exceeding 60 decibels at 50 feet was not narrowly tailored as applied to Lafayette Park because "[b]y no reasonable measure does Lafayette Park display the characteristics of a setting in which the government may lay claim to a legitimate interest in maintaining tranquility"); Beckerman v.City of Tupelo,Miss., 664 F.2d 502,516(5th Cir. 1981) (holding ban on amplified sound in residential zones overbroad because "the ordinance extends its total and non-discretionary prohibition to areas which have not been shown to be incompatible with sound equipment");Reeves v. McConn,631 F.2d 377,384(5th Cir. 1980)(holding amplified sound ban in downtown business district was not narrowly tailored because "there is probably no more appropriate place for reasonably amplified free speech than the streets and sidewalks of a downtown business district"); Burbridge v. Sampson,74 F.Supp.2d 940,951 (C.D.Cal. 1999) (Collins,J.) (granting preliminary injunction against rule banning amplified sound on community college campus except in three "preferred areas" because the defendants "failed to rebut Plaintiffs'claim that the'preferred areas'do not meet the 'ample alternatives for communications'requirement for reasonable content-neutral,time place, and manner regulation"); Lionhart v. Foster, 100 F.Supp.2d 383 (E.D.La. 1999) (holding that law "regulat[ing] the production of sound in excess of 55 decibels within 10 feet of hospitals or churches during posted services" was "unreasonably overbroad in the context of normal activities on public streets and in public parks"). Of course,even in a traditional public forum,reasonable restrictions on the use of amplified sound are permitted,so long as they are narrowly tailored to serve a significant government interest.But,because "streets,sidewalks,parks and other similar public places are so historically associated with the exercise of First Amendment rights access to them for the purpose of exercising such rights cannot constitutionally be denied broadly and absolutely." Hudgens v.NLRB,424 u.s.507,515 (1976) (quotation marks and citation omitted).The Civy's absolute ban on the use of amplified sound twenty-four hours per day on the Boardwalk except in a limited number of specially designated spaces simply sweeps too broadly and does not materially advance the City's proffered interest. Because Plaintiffs are likely to succeed on their claim that the amplified sound ban is facially overbroad(and because,as mentioned earlier,the balance of hardships and the public interest weigh in favor of enjoining regulations that violate the First Amendment),the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs'motion for preliminary injunction with respect to LAMC § 43.15 (F) (5)." DEAN D.PREGERSON United States District Judge Mastrovincenzo v.City of New York,435 F.3d 78-Court of Appeals,2nd Circuit 2006 HERE Venice Beach Boardwalk Vendors -Michael Hunt vs City of Los Angles challenged 2004 law city wrote new law and the selling of soap and incense were not given First Amendment protection.See htto://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/20 1 1/03/22/09-5 5750,pd Robert Lederman challenged new restrictions by New York City on vendors in parks in 2012 and lost. The appeal to a three judge panel 2nd Circuit Court was also lost in 2013. These were not total bans of vending in parks,but restrictions to vending in designated spots on a First Come,First Serve basis in crowded areas.See: Lederman v.N.Y.C. Dep't of Parks&Recreation,901 F.Supp.2d 464,479(S.D.N.Y.2012)HERE;LEDERMAN v.NEW YORK CITY DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION,Docket No. 12-4333—cv. September 25, No musical instruments allowed sign posted in Grant Park in Chicago.These signs were removed after successful negotiations to enact a license permit system along with court challenges in 1983.See American Bar Association Journal, December 1983,Vol 69,page 1816-1817. A UCLA Department of Urban Planning research book chapter summary on the use of public space can be found on this web site at: Sidewalk Democracy: Municipalities and the Regulation of Public Space Street Arts and Buskers Advocates Legal Citations STREET PERFORMING FIRST AMENDMENT PROTECTION FREE SPEECH,FREE EXPRESSION Street performing,like other art forms,is protected by the First and Fourteenth Amendments both historically and legally. Singing of broadsides was one of the earliest and most prevalent forms of the press.Plays,dances,and singing have always been associated with expression of religious sentiment.The US Supreme Court has stated: "Each medium of expression,of course,must be assessed for First Amendment purposes by standards suited to it... "the basic principles of freedom of speech and the press,like the First Amendment's command,do not vary.Those principles, as they have frequently been enunciated by this Court make freedom of expression the rule." Southeastern Promotions.Ltd.v.Conrad..420 US 546,557-558,(1974)http://laws.findlaw.com/us/420/546.html quoting Joseph Burstyn,Inc.v.Wilson,343 US 503 (1952). Music is protected under the First Amendment as a form of expression and communication. Music,as a form of expression and communication, is protected under the First Amendment.In the case before us the performances apparently consisted of remarks by speakers,as well as rock music,but the case has been presented as one in which the constitutional challenge is to the city's regulation of the musical aspects of the concert; and,based on the principle we have stated,the city's guideline must meet the demands of the First Amendment. Ward v Rock Against Racism 491 U.S. 781,790, 109 S Ct 2746 2753 105 L Ed 2d 661 (1989)bttl27Hlaws.findlaw.com/us/49ln8l.html Excerpted from: N.Y. Law Journal Monday 8/17/98.Judge Refuses to Enforce Permit Rule for Artists A New York City Parks Department rule requiring a$25 monthly license to sell artwork,books or other written matter in the parks or on sidewalks adjacent to the parks is not enforceable,a Manhattan Criminal Court judge has ruled in dismissing misdemeanor charges against three artists who were arrested for unlicensed vending. the City demonstrate an unduly restricted view of the First Amendment and of visual art itself.Such myopic vision not only overlooks case law central to First Amendment jurisprudence but fundamentally misperceives the essence of visual communication and artistic expression.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. Bery v.New York,97 F.3d 684(2d Cir. 1996) UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT Nos. 1620, 1621, 1782 August Term 1995(Argued: April 26, 1996 Decided: October 10, 1996) Docket Nos.95-9089(L), 95-9131,96-7137 Bery v.New York 97 F.3d 684 (2d Cir.1996) From a court case decided on April 6,2004 in Christopher Mastrovincenzo(aka. "MASTRO").and Kevin Santos (a.k.a. "NAC" OR "NAK")v NEW YORK CITY 313 F SUPP 2D 280(2004)NOTE: This case was reversed 2-1 in the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeal in January 2006 details will be posted shortly.Stated art work such as paintings are protected,but not T-shirts....435 Fad 78;2006 U.S.App.LEXIS 157 "The City's licensing requirement was intended to catch within its net merchants engaged solely in commerce of ready- made goods that clog the sidewalks and compete unfairly with legitimate stores.Applied overbroadly,as Defendants would do,the Ordinance essentially would impose a chilling effect on genuine artists whose true calling is art and not commerce,and whose manifest purpose may be to create expression rather than markets,even if at times some of their work may skirt the line between expressiveness and merchandise.Such an extension of the licensing regime [*293] would force artists to confront an undue dilemma: either to quell their creativity or to risk arrest if they believe their work is sufficiently expressive to fall within the protection of the First Amendment. [HN22] Freedom of expression is designed precisely to bar the government from compelling individuals into that speech-inhibiting choice.See Reno v.American Civil Liberties Union,521 U.S.844,871-72(1997)." Mastrovincenzo v.City of New York, 313 F.Supp.2d 280,2004 U.S.Dist.LEXIS 5804(SD-N.Y.,2004) See the following cases: Tinker v Des Moines Independent School District,393 US 503 (1969)black arm band; Spense v Washington 418 US 405 (1974)peace symbol taped on flag;Cohn v California,403 US 15 (1971)words "Fuck the Draft" sewn onto a jacket;Joseph Burstyn,Inc.v Wilson,343 US 495 (1952)film "Miracle";Jankins v Georgia,418 US 153 (1973)film "Carnal Knowledge";Doran v Salem Inn,Inc.422 US 922(1975)nude dancing; Southeastern Promotions, Ltd.v Conrad 420 US 546(1975)Musical Theatre"Hair;" Ward v.Rock Against Racism,491 U.S. 781,790, 109 S.Ct. 2746,2753, 105 L.Ed.2d 661 (1989)rock music;White v.City of Sparks Citation: 500 F.3d 953 (9th Cir.2007) selling art work in pubic park;Lionhart v.Foster 100 F.Supp.2d 383(E.D.La.,1999) street performing with amplification;Davenport v Alexandria.683 F2d 853 (1983),710 F2d 148 (1983),748 F2d 208(1984)street performing; Friedrich v.Chicago 619 F.Supp. 1129 (D.C.Ill 1985)street performing;Turley vs NYC 988 F.Supp,667 &675 (1997)street performing with amplification;and Goldstein v Town of Nantucket477 F.Supp.606(1979)street performing.In the last the US District Court of Massachusetts stated: "Troubadour's public performance of Nantucket's traditional folk music was clearly within the scope of protected First Amendment expression." Goldstein v Town of Nantucket,477 F.Supp.606,608 (1979) STREETS,PARKS,SIDEWALKS AND OTHER PUBLIC PLACES ARE HISTORIC FIRST AMENDMENT FORUMS The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that sidewalks,streets and parks are important First Amendment forums.See: Hague v.CIO 307 US 496;Shuttlesworth v.Birmingham,394 US 147 (1968); Amal.Food Emp.U.Loc. 590 v.Logan Val.Plaza,391 US 308 (1968);Coates v.City of Cincinnati,402 US 611 (1971);and Grayned v.City of Rockford,408 US 104(1972),Perry Education Assn.v.Perry Local Educators'Assn.,460 U.S. 37 (1983),Frisby v.Schultz,487 U.S. 474,480(1988), "Wherever the title of streets and parks may rest,they have immemorially been held in trust for use of the public and,time out of mind,have been used for purposes of assembly,communicating thoughts between citizens,and discussing public questions.Such use of the streets and public places has,from ancient times,been a part of the privileges,immunities, fights,and liberties of citizens." Hague v.CIO.,307 US 496,515-516 (opinion of Mr.Justice Roberts,joined by Mr. Justice Black) Shuttlesworth v.Birmingham.394 US 147, 152(1968)http://laws.findlaw.com/us/394/147.htmi "...we have repeatedly referred to public streets as the archetype of a traditional public forum." "Our prior holdings make clear that a public street does not lose its status as a traditional public forum simply because it runs through a residential neighborhood." "No particularized inquiry into the precise nature of a specific street is necessary;all public streets are held in the public trust and are properly considered traditional public fora." Frisby v.Schultz.487 U.S.474,480(1988) Street performances have been ascertained as an appropriate First Amendment activity on sidewalks,streets and parks in the following cases: Celli v.City of St.Augustine: 214 F.Supp.2d 1255 (M.D.Fla. 2000) (http7//www.ncac.org/art- law/op-cel.cfm); Davenport v Alexandria.683 F2d 853 (1983),710 F2d 148 (1983),748 F2d 208 (1984) street performing;Friedrich v.Chicago 619 F.Supp. 1129(D.C.Ill 1985) street performing; andGoldstein v Town of Nantucket 477 F.Supp.606(1979)street performing.In the last the US District Court of Massachusetts stated: "streets,sidewalks,parks,and other similar public places are ...historically associated with the exercise of First Amendment rights..." Amal.Food Emp.U.Loc.590 v.Logan Val. Plaza,391 US 308(1968). Goldstein v Town of Nantucket,477 F.Supp.606,608 (1979) A reason given for prohibiting street performers is the availability of other public areas.The Following US Supreme Court statement has been frequently quoted in numerous lower court decisions: "One is not to have the exercise of his liberty of expression in appropriate places abridged on the plea that it may be exercised in some other place." Schneider v State.308 US 147,163 (1939).bttp://Iaws.findlaw.com/us/308/147.htrnl CONTRIBUTIONS LEGALLY PROTECTED Leaving an instrument case open for voluntary compensation and receiving money for records and tapes are often the central issues.Derogatory remarks like "begging" and "panhandling" are usually directed at street artists.The US Supreme Court has repeatedly rejected attempts to ban First Amendment activity because it included solicatation or financial gain.See: Schneider v State.308 US 147.0939)MURDOCK v.PENNSYLVANIA 319 US 105.. (1943);Bigelow v Virginia.421 US 809(1974);Virginia State Board of Pharmacy v Virginia Citizens Consumer Council.425 US 748.(1975);Schaumburg v Citizens for Better Environment.444 U.S 620,(1979) Heffron v. International Soc.for Krishna Consciousness,Inc.,452 U.S.640(1981); RILEY v.NATIONAL FEDERATION OF BLIND.487 U.S.781 (1988) The US Supreme Court has stated: "But the mere fact that the religious literature is'sold'by itinerant preachers rather than'donated'does not transform evangelism into a commercial enterprise.If it did,then the passing of the collection plate in church would make the church service a commercial project.The constitutional rights of those spreading their religious beliefs through the spoken and printed word are not to be gauged by standards governing retailers or wholesalers of books.The right to use the press for expressing one's views is not to be measured by the protection afforded commercial handbills.It should be remembered that the pamphlets of Thomas Paine were not distributed free of charge." JONES v.CITY OF OPELIKA.319 U.S 105(1943)319 U.S. 105& MURDOCK v COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA and seven other cases.(1943) (Note: This case also included the use of phonographs by the Jehovah's Witnesses to solicit funds) "The fact that the particular advertisement in appellant's newspaper had commercial aspects or reflected the advertiser's commercial interest did not negate all First Amendment guarantees.The State was not free of constitutional restraint because the advertisement involved sales or "solicitations." Murdock v Pennsylvania 319 US 105,110-111(1943),or because appellant was paid for printing it,New York Times Co.v Sullivan,376 US at 266; Smith v California,361 US 147,150 (1959)or because appellant's motive or the motive of the advertiser may have involved financial gain,Thomas v Collins 323 US 516,531 (1945).The existence of commercial activity in itself is not justification for narrowing the protection of expression secured by the First Amendment,Ginzburg v United States 383 US 463,474(1966)." Bigelow v Virginia.421 US 809,818 (1974) http,//Iaws.findlaw,com/us/421/809.html "Speech likewise is protected even though it is carried in a form that is'sold' for profit.Smith v California 361 US 147 150 (1959)(books); Joseph Burstyn Inc.v Wilson 343 US 495,501(1952) (motion pictures)" "Murdock v Pennsylvania 319 US at Ill(religious literature)and even though it may involve a solicitation to purchase or otherwise pay or contribute money." Virginia State Board of Pharmacy v Virginia Citizens Consumer Council.425 US 748,761 (1975)http://laws.findlaw,com/us/425/748.html "Last term in Bigelow v Virginia,421 US 809(1974)the notion of unprotected'commercial speech'all but passed from the scene." Virginia State Board of Pharmacy v Virginia Citizens Consumer Council.425 US 748,759 (1975).ham://laws.findlaw.com/us/425/748.html Specifically,the US District Court of Massachusetts has stated: "The fact that plaintiff troubadour accepted contributions of passersby during his public performances would not dilute his protection under the First Amendment." Goldstein v Town of Nantucket,477 F.Supp.606,609 (1979) A.Economic Viability Clearly the street performing concept and the individual's expressed ideas have to be economically viable in order to survive in our present economic system.The US Supreme Court has stated: "Soliciting financial support is undoubtedly subject to reasonable regulation but the latter must be undertaken with due regard for the reality that solicitation is characteristically intertwined with informative and perhaps persuasive speech seeking support for particular causes or for particular views on economic,political or social issues,and for the reality that without solicitation the flow of such information and advocacy would likely cease." Schaumburg v Citizens for Better Environment.444 U.S 620(1979).hUg://Iaws.findlaw.com/us/444/620.html B.Economic Censorship A crucial aspect in only allowing street performers under prepaid contracts is the use of authority and money to censor what people hear. "The very purpose of the First Amendment is to foreclose public authority from assuming a guardianship of the public mind through regulating the press,speech,and religions.In this field every person must be his own watchman for truth, because the forefathers did not trust any government to separate the true from the false for us." Thomas v Collins.323 US 516,545 (1944),htln://laws.findlaw.com/us/323/516.html J.Jackson concurring "State supported university was not required to allocate funds from student fees or from public monies to pay invited speakers...university could not for no constitutionally acceptable reason,withhold funds for one speaker as a censorship device." Brooks v Auburn University,296 F.Supp.188,189(MD Ala. 1969) C.Campus Solicitation A number of court challenges of both public and private campus solicitation regulations have occurred.See: New Left Education Project v Board of Regents of the University of Texas 326 F.Supp. 158 (1970)(Public University)and State of New Jersey v Chris Schmid NJ.423 A.2d 615 (1980) (Private University- Princeton University). "University rules prohibiting sale of publications and other solicitations on campus except as authorized by the administration,without any standard governing the issuance of such authorization,were invalid as licensing regulations affecting First Amendment rights without adequate guidelines." New Left Ed.Proj.v Board of Regents of the U.of Texas,326 F.Supp. 158 (1970) "Private University's regulations,which were devoid of reasonable standards designed to protect legitimate interest of the university as institution of higher education and individual exercise of expressional freedom,could not constitutionally be invoked to prohibit otherwise noninjurious and reasonable exercise of such freedom,and thus the university violated state constitutional rights of defendant by evicting him and securing his arrest for distributing political literature upon its campus." (This case included distribution and sale of materials by the Labor Party members.) State of New Jersey v Chris Schmid N.J.,423 A.2d 615 (1980) D.Begging Anti begging and solicitations statues have been unconstitutional in Massachusetts since the ruling in Benefit v.City of Cambridge,679 N.E.2d 184 (Mass 1997). Peaceful begging constitutes communicative activity protected by the First Amendment" 424 Mass at 923. Benefit v.City of Cambridge,679 N.E.2d 184(Mass 1997). Note-- see article reviewing case: Benefit and Begging: By Frank J.Bailey and John C.La Liberte Statute Prohibiting Peaceful Pleas for Charity in Public Places Violates First Amendment- Benefit v.City of Cambridge at http://www.sherin.com/publication detail.asp?p=14 Final note: Even the U.S.Constitution was printed sold with a published and fixed price during the ratification process. Below is a copy of the first printing of the U.S.Constitution by The Pennsylvania Packet and Daily Advertiser on September 19, 1787,with a(Price Four-Pence.)at the top left comer(Library of Congress) RIGHT TO HEAR&TO CONTRIBUTE An equally alarming aspect of the street performing bans is the violation of the community's First Amendment right to listen. "There is a First Amendment right to peacefully assemble to listen to speakers of one's choice,which may not be impaired by state legislation any more than the right of speaker may be impaired." Snyder v Board of Trustees of University of Illinois,286 F.Supp.927,928,(ND I11.1968). "'The Supreme Court has recognized that hearers and readers have rights under the First Amendment.Lamont v Postmaster General 381 US 30185 S.Ct.1493 14 L.Ed.2d 398(1965).What is implicit in the majority opinion is made explicit in the concurring opinion of Justices Brennan and Goldberg: [T]he addressees assert First Amendment claims in their own right: they contend that the Government is powerless to interfere with the delivery of the material because the First Amendment necessarily protects the right to receive it." Brooks v Auburn University,296 F.Supp.188,192 (MD Ala.1969). The instrument case is open for the expression of gratitude.Financial remuneration is only one element of such expression;poems,sketches,notes,letters,ceramics and art work is often donated. "(T)he protection of the Bill of Rights goes beyond the specific guarantees to protect from congressional abridgment those equally fundamental personal rights necessary to make the express guarantees fully meaningful.(citing cases) I think the right to receive publications is such a fundamental right.The dissemination of ideas can accomplish nothing if otherwise willing addressees are not free to receive and consider them.It would be a barren marketplace of ideas that had only sellers and no buyers." Lamont v.Postmaster General,381 US 301,308 (1965)http://Iaws.frndlaw.com/us/38l/301 html(Brennan,J., concurring)...