How NYC Street Artists Won Our Rights

NY Times
August 11, 2001
Judge Bars Permit Requirement for Art Vendors
By KATHERINE E. FINKELSTEIN

A federal judge has ruled that the Giuliani

administration's requirement that art vendors in
parks have permits is a violation of the city code,
which unconditionally prohibits mandatory
licensing for those who sell art and books.

The decision, issued Aug. 7 by Judge Lawrence M.

McKenna of United States District Court in
Manhattan, did not delve into whether the city's
actions violated the artists' constitutional right to
free speech. But in multiple lawsuits and legal
motions that the artists have won in state and
federal courts, they have argued that their rights
to free speech were being restricted.

The decision, which the city vowed yesterday to

appeal, affects street artists who display their
work in parks or on adjacent sidewalks, including
those at the Metropolitan Museum of Art, which
are part of Central Park. Their legal battle began
in 1998 after the police began issuing summonses
to those without permits. The conflict escalated
into street protests and arrests, and the police
confiscated some artwork.
Yesterday, a group of the artists gathered outside
the Metropolitan Museum to celebrate the
decision. Holding an unflattering painting of
Mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani, Robert Lederman, one
of the artists, said that the legal victory protected
the rights of everyone from leafleteers to media
magnates whose papers are sold in vending
boxes, which require no permits.

''Our efforts continue to make this city a place

where artists can enjoy the freedom to create,
display and sell their works,'' he said, ''and this
most essential of human freedoms can continue
to be enjoyed by all New Yorkers.''

The federal decision came on the heels of a state

decision last week that also favored the artists. A
state appeals court affirmed the decision of a
judge in State Supreme Court in Manhattan who
dismissed criminal charges against two artists
who were given summonses for selling artwork
without a permit.

The Manhattan district attorney's office has

decided to appeal that decision also, according to
city officials. The officials acknowledged that after
the state decision last week they told the police
and the Parks Department, which has jurisdiction
over the space, to stop issuing summonses to the
artists.

Yesterday, city officials characterized the defeats

in state and federal courts as the result of
confusion over the interpretation of the city code.
The parks commissioner, Henry J. Stern, called the
case ''a highly technical decision dealing with
effect of administrative code on park-related
matters.''

But he said that the Parks Department hoped to

impose ''reasonable regulations'' either through
legal remedy or some amendment to the city
code. Currently, he said, ''the unregulated
commercial sale of art in public parks is
inappropriate and intrusive.''

A lawyer for the city, Robin Binder, said last night,

''The city thinks the decision is wrong and intends
to appeal.'' The city can appeal to the United
States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit and
beyond that to the United States Supreme Court.

Both sides seemed poised for further legal

fighting yesterday. At the Metropolitan Museum,
one of the artists, Wei Zhang, said that he had
come from China, a country without human rights
or free speech. After getting here, he said, the
Giuliani administration had him arrested and
confiscated his paintings. ''I come to the wrong
place again,' '' he said.

The discord began in March 1998, when the city

began to try to regulate the cluster of street
artists outside the Metropolitan Museum and
began issuing 24 permits a month -- at $25 each
-- to those selling their work there. The fine for
those selling works without permits was $1,000.

When the artists organized protests, singing and

likening Mr. Giuliani to a dictator, the police
started arresting them, leading a number of them
away in handcuffs. Officials from the Metropolitan
Museum said at the time that they did not have
any complaints with the artists.

The artists organized a group, Artist, an acronym

for Artists' Response to Illegal State Tactics, and
demanded that the state abide by a 1996 federal
court decision that was the first to reject the city's
efforts to license artists. Their protests and the
arrests continued, and the lawsuits began as they
fought what they called restrictions on their
freedom.

In August 1998, Judge Lucy Billings of State

Supreme Court in Manhattan dismissed the
charges against several of the artists, ruling that
city law prevented the licensing of book and art
vendors. She quoted a 1982 City Council law that
said, ''It is consistent with the principles of free
speech and freedom of the press to eliminate as
many restrictions on the vending of written
matter as is consistent with the public health,
safety and welfare.''

While the city appeals, one of the lawyers for the

artists, Robert Perry, said his clients might go to
trial to get damages for the restriction on their
livelihood.
Meanwhile, the artists seemed to be doing a brisk
business selling postcards that depicted Mr.
Giuliani in various monstrous guises.

NY Times
June 1, 2002
Ban Lifted on Capitol Steps Protests

A federal appeals court panel today struck down a

rule banning demonstrations on a sidewalk
outside the United States Capitol, ruling that the
ban violated freedom of speech.

The unanimous decision by a three-judge panel of

the federal Court of Appeals for the District of
Columbia Circuit upheld a First Amendment
constitutional challenge to the rules, which
prohibit ''demonstration activity'' like parading,
picketing, leafleting, vigils, sit-ins and
speechmaking.

The demonstration ban was adopted by the

Capitol Police Board, which has the power to
adopt regulations under federal law. But the
three-judge panel held that the site of the
demonstration, a sidewalk leading to the Capitol
steps, was a public forum.

Judge David S. Tatel wrote that the sidewalk

wraps around the Capitol almost without
interruption, giving pedestrians access to the
front of the building, which he called a
centerpiece of United States democracy.

The case involved Robert Lederman, an artist who

demonstrated at the Capitol to publicize a lawsuit
he and others brought to sell their work on New
York City sidewalks.

Two Capitol police officers in 1997 arrested Mr.

Lederman, who was distributing leaflets and
carrying a sign reading ''Stop Arresting Artists''
when he was arrested. He was acquitted by a
judge in the city's Superior Court who found the
ban unconstitutional.

Mr. Lederman then sued in federal court,

challenging the ban's constitutionality and
seeking damages from various parties, including
the two police officers.

The court rejected the argument by government

lawyers that the sidewalk functioned as a
''security perimeter'' around the Capitol and
therefore justified the ban.

The court ordered that an injunction be entered

barring enforcement of the demonstration ban.

The sidewalk at issue currently is closed to the

public during construction of a visitors' center, a
project expected to last several years.
NY Times
June 3, 1997
SoHo Street Artists Triumph As High Court Rebuffs
City
By RICK LYMAN

Ending a case that pitted the First Amendment

rights of street artists against New York City's
efforts to control sidewalk congestion, the United
States Supreme Court yesterday refused to hear
the city's appeal of an earlier ruling that barred it
from requiring the artists to be licensed.

The city must now develop a policy to bring it into

accord with a decision last October by the Federal
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, which
said street artists are protected by the First
Amendment in the same way as sidewalk
booksellers, who do not need city licenses.

''The city is now working on a policy to bring us

into compliance with today's court action,'' said
Colleen Roche, a spokeswoman for Mayor Rudolph
W. Giuliani, ''and, while disappointing, today's
decision is not unanticipated.''

In recent years, as the Giuliani administration

began to crack down on ''quality of life'' crimes,
street artists began to be considered in the same
category as T-shirt vendors, who are required to
have licenses. Unlicensed artists trying to sell
their wares were often arrested or chased by the
police out of such prime selling areas as SoHo and
Times Square. There are only 853 licenses to go
around, however, and there is a long waiting list.

Citing the General Vendors Law, the

administration argued that city officials had the
right to restrict the number and location of street
artists as they do other types of vendors, to ease
congestion and insure a free flow of pedestrian
traffic.

But the artists sued and, asking for a temporary

restraining order, argued that they deserved the
same protections as booksellers and others selling
printed materials, who had long been exempt
from licensing.

In 1995, a District Court refused to grant the

restraining order. The artists appealed and many
continued to sell their works, risking arrest. But
the circuit court ruled in October that the lower
court had erred in its interpretation of the First
Amendment.

''Visual art is as wide ranging in its depiction of

ideas, concepts and emotions as any book,
treatise, pamphlet or other writing, and is
similarly entitled to First Amendment protection,''
the circuit court ruled. ''The city's requirement
that appellants be licensed in order to sell their
art work in public spaces constitutes an
unconstitutional infringement on their First
Amendment rights.''

Robert Lederman, a plaintiff in the case and head

of an association of street artists, said the
Supreme Court's decision was a ''significant
triumph'' for the estimated 500 artists who try to
sell their work along the city's sidewalks.

''We are finally going to be treated like ordinary

citizens instead of second-class citizens,'' said Mr.
Lederman, who heads Artists Response to Illegal
State Tactics, or Artist. ''I've been selling my
works on the streets since 1962, when I was 12
years old. It is a tremendous relief to know that I
am not subject to arrest anymore.''

Councilwoman Kathryn E. Freed, who has

supported efforts to regulate sidewalk congestion,
including the licensing of artists, said after
yesterday's decision, ''I don't have a problem with
them saying that visual art is as important as
written art.'' However, she added, ''the
municipality has to have the right to have some
sort of control over its sidewalks.''

Robert Louttit, director of community safety for

the Fifth Avenue Business Improvement District,
which was among the most vocal groups calling
for regulation of street artists and other vendors,
said he was disappointed with the ruling.
''We've got sidewalks that are often very, very
crowded,'' Mr. Louttit said. ''To add obstacles to
pedestrian traffic is a real problem, often forcing
people to walk out in the street just to get from
one place to the other, and it creates an attractive
environment for pickpockets and other crime.''

Representatives for street artists said yesterday

that the administration had continued crackdowns
against them as recently as last weekend, despite
the appeals court ruling. Ms. Roche declined to
say what, if any, action would be taken against
unlicensed street artists until the new policy is
drafted.

Most of the confrontations between the police and

the street artists have occurred along West
Broadway and Prince Street in SoHo, a
neighborhood represented by Ms. Freed in the
City Council.

Mr. Lederman has charged that the city and Ms.

Freed are trying to restrict the street artists at the
behest of landlord groups. Ms. Freed said she is
acting only on requests from SoHo residents that
something be done about congestion.

An immediate impact of yesterday's decision, Mr.

Lederman said, is that the quality of art being
offered for sale on the sidewalks will go up. The
police have frequently confiscated and destroyed
art works, he said, making many artists leery of
exhibiting their best efforts.
''Now I think you will find a Renaissance of street
art,'' Mr. Lederman said. ''This decision will be a
cultural plus for everybody in the city.''

Selected bibliography out of thousands of articles

on this issue:

"Judge Refuses To Enforce Permit rule For Artists"

New York

Law Journal 8/17/98 and 8/18/98

NYTIMES 8/18/98 "Charges Are Dropped in Sale of

Art in Parks in New York"

NY Times Metro Sec. 5/8/98 B4 "For Giuliani,

Hobbist, A Different Big Picture";

NY Times editorial 3/4/98 Street Art Wars;

New York Post 7/6/98 "Paint Misbehavin": an Art

Attack".

N.Y. Press 7/8/98 "Public enemy: Robert

Lederman’s War Against

Mayor Giuliani"

Newsday 3/16/98 pg 4 "Now Showing: Art of

Protest".
NY TIMES Metro pg 1 3/22/98 "War of the
Paintbrushes";

Time Out 4/16-23/98 pg. 39 "Brush With Danger";

N.Y. Times Metro 4/18/98 "Judge Upholds Limit on

Artists Selling Pictures Near Museum";

Newsday 4/20/98 cover story "Under Giuliani City

Has Repeatedly Stifled Dissent".

NY Times 3/2/98 B1 "Artists Arrested In Raucus

Rally Against

Sales Permits Near Museum"

Newsday 3/2/98 A7 "Ojections D’ Art"

Newsday 2/26/98 A8 "Artistic Licenses"

Village Voice 2/24/98 "Chronic Offender" pg 57

New York Times Metro Section B3, Tuesday, June

3, 1997 "SoHo Street Artists Triumph As High
Court Rebuffs City"

New York Times Editorial Page Wednesday, June

4,1997 "Street Art Wars"

Art In America December 1996 "Feds Rule in

Favor of Street Art"
Art News December 1996 pg. 49 "Court Curbs Ban
On Street Artists"

Daily News Oct. 12, 1996 pg. 5 "Court Brushes Off

Art Sale Permits"

New York Times Editorial Page October 19, 1996

"The Fight Over Street Art"

Art In America, March 1996 pg. 128 "New Allies

for Street Artists".

Christian Science Monitor Thursday, July 14, 1994

pg. 11 "New York Reins In Street Art"

Christian Science Monitor Wednesday, Febuary

14, 1996,"Conflict On the Street: Artists v. N.Y.C."

ALSO see:

Daily News lead editorial 2/23/04 Put the peddle

to the metal

Gotham Gazette 1/5/04 Artists' Fight To Sell On

The Sidewalk

NY Times Editorial page 1/4/04 OP-ED Let New

York's Veterans Vend

NY Post Editorial 1/2/04 SILVER FOR UNSAFE

STREETS
NY Post BLAME ALBANY GRIDLOCK FOR
NIGHTMARE CONGESTION

NY Post 12/31/03 NYERS GET FED UP WITH

HAWKER CLOG

NY Post 12/31/03 BIZARRE BAZAAR HURTING

CITY'S P.R.

NY Press 12/30/03 Scrubbing First Amendment

Ave. Who’s behind the war against the vendors?

by Robert Lederman

NY Times City Section 12/21/03 Ye Olde

Coniferous Tree Exception

Daily News 12/19/03 City lets foul food carts stew

NY Post 12/19/03 NEW YUCK CITY FOOD VENDORS

NY Post 12/19/03 KNOCKOFF SALES SACK CITY

PURSE

NY Times 12/19/03 Comptroller Urges Crackdown

on Pushcart Food Monitoring

AM-NY Editorial 12/9/03 Street Vendors Are Worse

Than Presidential Gridlock

NY Post Editorial 12/8/03 VENDOR VILLAINY

Daily News 12/7/03 Home front battle lines

Daily News 12/7/03 by Johnathan Capehart Clear

sidewalks of New York

12/6/03 Daily News editorial Blame Silver & Bruno

Daily News 12/3/03 Mike tags vendors as

dangerous

NY Post 12/3/03 BLOOMY TRIES TO SELL ALBANY

ON VENDOR LAW

NY Times 12/5/03 Albany Fails to Pass a Bill to

Regulate New York City's Vendors

NY Post 12/05/03 POLS SURRENDER TO THE

VENDORS

Daily News 12/5/03 City shopping for help with

vendor rules

NY Times editorial 12/4/03 FIXING ALBANY How

Hard Is It to Control the Vendors?

NY Times 12/2/03 At Crossroads of World, Gridlock

on the Sidewalks

Daily News lead editorial 11/29/03 Sweep the

peddlers off the streets

Daily News 12/2/03 Canny ad plan City trashes

sponsors - for a fee (BIDs install 400 ad-covered
trash cans in Times Sq]

CRAINS NY BUSINESS 11/24/03 Street vendors

raise ruckus, add to the holiday crush; Businesses
calling for restrictions; First Amendment issue

Daily News 11/10/03 New York or Bangkok? Army

of street vendors gives city Third World feel

Daily News editorial 11/10/03 They're sidewalks,

not bazaars

New York Post 6/18/03 VENDING HAGGLE

NY Times 7/10/03 Veterans, Vendors and Beaten

Paths

The Villager 7/24/03 Artists and city view permits

ruling differently

Daily News 5/10/03 City gags on vendor tax bills

NY Post 5/10/03 'DEADBEAT' PRETZEL TWIST

NY Times 9/4/02 Commerce Rushes in Where Art

Once Ruled

Newsday 5/20/02 Street Artists Refuse to Be

Curbed

NY Sun 1/8/03 To Vend Or Not To Vend

NY Sun 12/24/02 City Is Planning New Rules For
Vendors

NY Sun Editorial 8/15/02Paranoid Protesting

NY Sun 8/14/02 Parks Commissioner Planning a

Crackdown On Venders of Artwork

NY Times 8/11/01 Judge Bars Permit Requirement

for Art Vendors

NY Post 8/11/2001Court: Permit Art Without

Permit

Newsday 8/11/2001 Judge: Street artists no longer

have to buy vendor permits

Newsday 1/28/03 Selling Art In Parks At Issue

OUR TOWN 2/13/03 City May Subject Park Artists

to Permit System, Many cite First Amendment
violations

NY Sun 1/28/03 Venders Protest City Plan To

Require Park Permits

Newsday 1/22/03 Putting Burgers Before Art Parks

Commissioner Wants Artists Out, Fast Food In

NY Newsday Jan 20, 2003 Wendy's Plan Makes

Park A Garden of Eatin'; Fast food on public
property

New York Sun 9/24/02 ARTISTS GAIN STRENGTH

IN FIGHT WITH MAYOR

Newsday 8/15/02 Mayor's Bill Is Last Draw For

Artists

Newsday 3/2/98 Objections D’ Art

Newsday 2/26/98 Artistic Licenses

NY Times 3/2/98 Artists Arrested in a Rally

Opposing Permits

NY Times 3/22/98 War of the Paintbrushes

NY Times editorial 8/20/01New York's Art Wars

Continue

NY Times editorial The Fight Over Street Art

3/4/98

NY Post editorial 5/17/98 The ARTIST Hustle

N.Y. Post editorial 8/20/98 Free Speech Or Free

Exhibition Space?

NY Post editorial 6/16/98 Demonizing Rudy

Giuliani

Christian Science Monitor 7/14/94 New York Reins

In Street Art

Christian Science Monitor 2/14/96 Conflict on the

Street: Artists v. N.Y.C.

Washington Post 3/20/2000 Speech Activist 2;

Capitol Police 0

Washington Post 6/1/2002 Capitol Ban on Protests

Nullified Court Opens Sidewalk To Demonstrators

[Ruling: Robert Lederman v. United States]

NY Daily News 4/12/2002 Peddlers Take Stand Vs.

Cops for Art's Sake

Newsday 12/19/99 A Thorn in the Mayor's Side

Village Voice 4/2/03 Pro-War Media Conglomerate

Tries to Take Over New York

NY Observer NY 3/31/03 Will Parks Department

Once Again Regulate Art Vendors?

Village Voice 3/12/03 Christo Challenges

Bloomberg on Art in the Parks; Closing 'The Gates'
to Intro #160

Newsday 1/28/03 Selling Art In Parks At Issue

NY Times 8/17/01PUBLIC LIVES End Draws Near

for Mayor's Artful Adversary
"Chronic Offender", Village Voice 2/24/98;
Newsday 4/20/98 cover story "Under Giuliani City
Has Repeatedly Stifled Dissent"; N.Y. Times 5/7/98
pg B4 "For Giuliani, A Different Big Picture";
Editorial: "the Big Chill" by Bob Herbert NY Times
5/31/98.; NY Times 6/2/98 "Vending Ban Widens:
not Just Food But also Books and Art".