The Oral arguments from May18th when Attorney Mark Weinberg argued why the charges against me are an unconstitutional application of a badly written law.

http://www.art-teez.org/free-speech-movement/100722-may18-2010-oral-argument-drew-v-illinois.pdf

You judge the justice in this case for yourself.

What is the role of Art in Society?

Why am I willing to risk my freedom so some unknown artists can sell their art in the streets and in the parks of a city that cares not at all for them or myself?

Art is speech. Artists are those who polish their speech. The word “communication” could be substituted for speech but because the First Amendment uses the word speech, so do I. Some philosophers prefer the phrase “self-expression.” That works for me, as well.

Art performs the same role that speech does in society except it is a more polished form of speech and therefore more effective than the unpolished speech. There are many forms of art but all art involves communication and is considered speech in terms of this essay and by the full meaning of the First Amendment in my opinion. Sometimes art’s effect is explosive and dangerous to those in power. When you add up the sum of all the art/speech activity in a society you have what we call culture. Culture develops self-identity and self-identity gives meaning to our lives. Many forces attempt to define what our lives mean, what meaning we find in life, what our history means, what we think. They do so to attempt to control our future actions and allegiances.

Artists may be categorized into thematic art collectives, hip-hop culture, pop culture, Western culture, Mid-eastern culture, and on and on. Cultures can clash. Many human beings are willing to fight and die for their various culture’s existence. In a diverse democracy we need to learn to be tolerant of the many cultures that make up our society. Cultural clash does not have to be physically violent in an open society. Physical violence most often occurs when one culture attempts to use law or force to suppress the cultures of others in order to gain an unfair advantage for the cultural category they identify with.

After I left Art School in photography at the University of Minnesota I moved into the poor mixed Summit University community of St. Paul Minnesota in 1975 and soon began volunteering as a photographer for the community newspaper, the Summit-University Free Press. I built them a darkroom, shot photos for them, helped layout the paper and even wrote some stories.

My education in community art began at Inner City Youth League in St. Paul Minnesota in the late 70’s. This African American community arts institution began by the nephew of Gordan Parks, a world famous Time-Life photographer of the 1950’s-60’s, was founded at a time when major art institutions were lilly-white in their curitorial practices. Artists of color were never exhibited. Even “white women” rarely were shown. Art and culture was controlled to reflect the taste and attitudes of the racist rulers of the moment. The artists at Inner City Youth League understood their role in society. It was no mystery to them that art had the power to liberate or to enslave a people. Their artistic mission was liberation.

The foundations of the time were reluctant to fund an all black institution. When President Carter took office in 1976 he created the Comprehensive Employment and Training Act (CETA) and placed the employment of artists in service of community agencies at a premium. Artists applying to CETA in St. Paul were administered from a central agency designated for that city. The Executive Director of Inner-City Youth League (ICYL) could apply for staff from CETA but not determine who CETA sent to him. He hired a diverse group of artists through CETA to staff a vibrant program of arts serving the African American community in St. Paul.

I talked with the Director of ICYL before I applied to CETA. Then once I was accepted into the program CETA I asked to serve in my Summit-University community. CETA gave me a choice of working at ICYL or at a major cultural institution in downtown St. Paul. I chose to serve my community over an institution with a recognized career path.

I was hired to teach photography in 1977 at ICYL. It was a struggle for me as a white person to adapt to an African American environment but I developed friends at ICYL who gave me on the job training. It was also a challenge to lead a program that had a darkroom but no supplies, no cameras and no budget. I spent my first summer finding donations of film, and chemicals. I scrounged up enough equipment to teach a basic program in photography the first summer. Our workshop continued as an after school program. I began to supply photos by my students to the Summit University Free Press to illustrate stories about the community. Photos by my students often appeared on the cover of the Free Press by the summer of my second year at Inner-City Youth League.

Photo paper was our most expensive supply. During the winter of my first year I discovered a source of rolls of 8 ½” wide photo paper made for a machine duplication process available at a recycling center that gave a very graphic image short on gray scale but cheap beyond belief. This became our print paper the second summer and the youth could print all they wanted using this paper. We went crazy shooting film and developing thousands of images. The best image we reprinted on quality photo paper.

Someone suggested we ought to apply to exhibit our activity at the Minnesota State Fair in their education pavilion. I applied with our proposal by the deadline and it was accepted. We set about building a booth from the cardboard of boxes which we taped together and wallpapered with the photos inside and out of the youth, their families and friends from the Summit-University African American community. Once it was done and erected in the education pavilion at the State Fair we brought bundles of the Summit-University Free Press to give away to those attending the fair and organized the students to staff our booth throughout the week long fair.

There were published guidelines that defined how the booths entered by educational groups (mostly 4H chapters) were to be judged. I had read them carefully while applying and followed them well. The first day of the fair I walked through the exhibit area surveying the competition and it was weak. We were the only booth that was manned, one of the criteria for scoring high. We were one of the few that was actually a produced by a team effort, another criteria. Most rural schools competing had simply assigned the creation of their booth to some local volunteer who picked a theme like the 4H group that picked “Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs” or some similar hoaky theme. Some themes hinted at a presumed superiority of white culture. Often there was little connection with education at all (a prominent criteria).

Later that day when the judges came through one or two at the time the first few were very impressed by our students manning the booth and the community theme we had established. We gave them Free Press newspapers with the students photos on the cover. Then, a group of three judges came through and as two waxed eloquent about our achievement the third judge stopped the others short and asked suddenly, are we supposed to judge this booth?

The reason was obvious. If they were – we would win the blue ribbon hands down. But this was the white dominated Minnesota State Fair and the blue ribbon for the educational booth competition was for bragging rights among rural schools statewide. How could this African American group be allowed to the bragging rights in the educational competition in the lily-white Minnesota State Fair? How could they award this to an African American educational agency from the inner-city? They rushed off to ask the head of the education pavilion about this. He came back with them – took one scowling look into our booth and declared it should not be judged. I flipped. After a long argument he smiled and agreed to allow it to be judged. When the results were announced we didn’t even place. The booth with Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs did – however. It seems like some people intend to control art and culture for their won purposes, then and now.

Today artists of color are selected by and exhibited at all major cultural institutions. However, community arts groups that are devoted to a single ethnic group still have great trouble finding funding. Small independent arts groups run by artists devoted to nurturing emerging artists also find difficulty surviving beyond the elbow-grease level of volunteer staffs.

In Chicago this is true. The cultural gatekeepers are in control. There is not one single art scene where local artists can sell their art to the public and build an audience as an emerging artist at the grass-roots level. I have observed artists exhibiting with us for twenty years at the Uptown Multi-Cultural Art Center. They struggle to make a living from their art in Chicago and often give up in frustration . The first level of audience building opportunity has been destroyed by laws that discourage art and culture at the street and public park level of activity. This is a violation of our First Amendment right to survive and build our audiences in public. It is cultural repression.

Art Fairs rent back public space to artists for a few days at prices that skim the profit off the top building their for-profit ventures off the backs of those artists who attempt to make a living in public. This cultural share-cropping. Most artists succeed only in promoting their presence through this method and eventually give it up as unprofitable. Others battle for a few prestigious gallery positions as captive artists in service to the whims of the wealthy patrons. Still others seek to promote themselves on-line but find that without a public presence their traffic and success is greatly limited.

There is no alternative to a vibrant street arts culture in reaching out to involve new audiences in arts and culture, whether it is an individual artists developing his/her audience or the City as a whole developing a local market for arts and culture. Chicago’s arts community is stunted. Artists’ rights are violated.

Now there is a way you can help change this. Your support is needed for the Art Patch Project. The Art Patch Project is a win-win non-violent community art pathway to change. We are on a slow but determined path toward educating the public – beginning with the youth – by marching the art of many local artists (a growing number) around the legal walls that bind us until these laws crumble. We are accepting designs from artists which we print on cotton patches. We add in the margins the artists title, contact information and our free-speech issue website. These art-patches we give away in all their variety in public. Youth are wearing this art. The public is being introduced to many artists they would never be aware of otherwise. These are the artists they are missing in public. In the long term we are increasing awareness of artists rights to sell art in public.

This Art Patch Program is combined with a methodical plan to sue Chicago over its violations of our First Amendment rights to defeat the laws in Federal Court. These actions have threatened my freedom at the hands of a City and a State that does not want change to occur. The level that the City Fathers are ready to go to keep us from succeeding is a measure of just how important the changes we are making are.

I am willing to risk my freedom for future opportunities for artists. Our collective freedom – the right to create art scenes through which many artists can survive - is worth it. All an artist who wants to help make Chicago more friendly to her/himself needs do is submit a single design to the Art Patch Project. Love freedom. Love Chicago. Love art. Help out. In exchange we will promote you, your art and your website/email address far and wide. How can you lose?

Don’t think we live in a police state in Illinois? Compare Chicago with New York as regards artists interfacing with their police.

The following are the instructions given to artists by Robert Lederman, artist organizer of artists, in New York City.

"Artists are once again reminded of a basic fact about
laws, your rights and courts that most of you continue to
completely ignore at your own peril:

You have to collect EVIDENCE if you want to win your case.
That goes for beating a ticket or winning a lawsuit.
Your verbal recollection, notes or witnesses are not going
to help you prevail against the testimony of the police.

EVERY SINGLE conversation with a PEP officer, NYPD
officer, Parks Dept official or BID employee should be taped
from the first to last word of the event. Get their names
and who they work for on tape as well. Such tapes are legal
WITHOUT getting permission to make them,
and absolutely can be used in court.

If you are going to let the Parks Dept do whatever they
want to you in whatever arbitrary way, and not even bother
to document it with a video, you are asking for more and more
harassment.

Following this advice in Illinois will land you in a 1st class felony fight because you have no right to gather the evidence you need to dispute anything a policeman says in court in Illinois. Add to this, in Chicago we have Mayor Daley, who will not fire violent officers – even those with 50 or more human rights abuse charges against them, or even tell the City Council who those officers are."

I know it hurts. I know its hard to admit after repeating the pledge of allegiance since our first day in school and when I think about how many times have I have sung the national anthem but consider my reality, I am facing up to 15 years in prison from selling art for $1 on State Street. I was arrested on the misdemeanor for selling art but charged 6 hours later with a 1st class felony for eavesdropping on my own arrest and violating the privacy rights of the officer who arrested me. I had a digital audio recorder running collecting background noise from our Street Artist Adventure.

My lawyer tells me there is a correspondence between those states that have overly broad eavesdropping laws and states where the mob has influence. Corruption! Of course. If you are a corrupt public official or a person involved in corruption its in your favor to have an eavesdropping law that prevents anyone from recording anything in public without the fear of a felony. A corrupt person feels more comfortable in a state like that. Corruption includes police who violate police procedure and who hide violations of police procedure. Unfortunately, its possible for a lot of honest people to end up felons while the real felons walk free. That’s why I ask – what is the state of our police in this state we are in?

Want to clean up corruption in this State? Start by changing the eavesdropping law. It’s a small but important step in that direction. And it sets the citizens free to contribute to the improvement of public servants from the street level up. This is the best thing for the many good men and women on any city force or any city street, right? Because police should be able to be proud of being professional, upholding the constitution and citizens rights, while doing their duty, right? Pride in service – pride in self. Right or wrong? And citizens should be able to have that same confidence in their police force.

I spent twenty years building an art organization, the Uptown Multi-Cultural Art Center, mostly as a full time volunteer. Those were twenty years of interfacing with local artists, creating exhibits of art on t-shirts and teaching screen printing in a free screen print workshop for artists. Artists need places to meet the public and build audiences. Throughout history the public walks and parks have been places for artists to build their audiences, and that always went for selling their work in public, too. Unlike any other nation, we have a 1st Amendment to our Constitution that promises us this right of speech.

Yet, many cities around the world allow their artists more rights than Chicago does to reach their public. That is why I challenged the peddlers license by selling art for $1 on State Street. What are the Chicago Police, the State’s Attorney, and the State of Illinois saying by bouncing back with a 1st class felony for audio-recording my own arrest? Are they that afraid of artists who dare to speak out?

The eavesdropping law needs to be amended. This law is gaining in notoriety from my case and others. There is no case law on the constitutionality of audio-recording police because it is legal to do so in most states. Only recently have cell phones made audio and video recording as common as chewing gum or the aluminum can. The time is ripe to re-evaluate the Illinois eavesdropping law.

Just 12 states have all parties consent laws, meaning everyone must consent to legally audio-record a conversation in public. But most allow that the conversation must be deemed a private conversation like you on your telephone or with a business partner discussing business discretely.

In Illinois – the most extreme of the 12 states, privacy is not even an issue – public or private – without all parties consenting – audio recording is a felony. True enough, as the law is written, but the whole reason for the law and my charge is privacy, the privacy of the public speech of an arresting officer. The same arresting officer who has no privacy that his employer – the State respects – while he/she is on duty.

With all the cameras the City has everywhere including all police cars, they can watch him, you and me but its a first class felony for us to gather information in public that could protect us from false testimony in court. A public arrest is a public interaction on the public way by a public servant paid by our tax dollars. We have a duty to use our 1st Amendment rights to report and to prove corruption and ineptitude in government. We do this by gathering evidence.

We need to restore artists’ right to sell art in public and citizens’ right to gather information on police and other public servants in public when they are on duty. These two specific 1st Amendment rights we need to re-establish in Illinois and Chicago to honestly say we are a free people.

Please take a stand on this issue. I also ask for your suggestions on how and where to find allies in our effort to change this law. Finally, if you really get it – could you donate something on Facebook or NetworkforGood (Guidestar) online to the Uptown Multi-Cultural Art Center so we can buy and post the transcript of our oral arguments for dismissal and expand the Art Patch Project. We want to post all the news related to this case we can gather – online – so that we can illustrate the justice we receive in Illinois.

This link will take you to an audio stream of my WZRD Northeastern University radio station “FreeForm” interview about my 1st class felony charge from selling art for $1 on State Street in Chicago.

Art Speech in an Open Society Debate

On December 2^nd, 2009 I stood out on State Street in Chicago wearing a red poncho with clear sandwich bags safety-pinned to it filled with art-patches by different supportive artists whose designs are entered in the Art Patch Project. My goal was to test the Chicago Peddlers license law. Among the two dozen designs by a dozen different artists were two of my own.

I was arrested on two misdemeanor counts, one of selling art without a peddlers license and the second for selling art in a prohibited district outlined as outlawed for all vendors in the peddlers license law.

The double charge for one “crime” is actually appreciated because the second charge pinpoints a specific example of the unconstitutional nature of the peddlers license when applied to speech. The fact that it is broadly written - excluding speech sales from broadly defined areas of Chicago. The prohibited district I was charge for selling in encompasses the entire Loop. How convenient! I expected to be released later that evening. Six hours later a 1^st class felony charge of audio-recording my own arrest was added to my charges. I was kept over night in the coldest cell available (45 degrees or less), fighting hypothermia. I survived and was shipped off to county jail for processing the next morning.

I had thought long and hard about what I would have with me to sell that day. I also had two t-shirts for sale but they were in my bag and undisplayed. One artist had told me I should only take my own art on my test. That advice went unheeded. My goal was to seek a precedent that would create the most opportunity for artists possible. In the future I could see the Art Patch Project – our non-profit art initiative - morphing into a way for artists to survive economically by their art. Artists could sell their art on patches along with the art of other artists and help seed the creation of public art scenes in Chicago.

In my mind, the poncho I donned could be a prototype of a sales cape that could be worn by grass-roots art entrepreneurs who bring the expression of local artists right to the public. Our goal – to enlarge the cultural market place of ideas in public. Also, we want to encourage the local art market and emerging artists by creating economic opportunities for artists to thrive by their art.

After this action I received a letter from a man I knew had tested similar laws in Nevada and other southwestern cities in the 9^th Federal Circuit. He was upset with me. He wanted to know if I was fighting for “artists rights” or if I was fighting for “everyone’s rights” to sell art in public.

He claimed, emphatically that if I fought for everyone’s rights, I would lose. It was the goal of his legal actions to enshrine “Fine Artists” as among the most protected individuals under the First Amendment and to draw a line declaring anyone selling someone else’s art as unprotected or at least less protected.

His first letter was four pages. I commented on it on my e-mail list briefly saying only that a controversy is apparent between the eastern and western Federal Circuits over what is art and who is protected when it is sold in public. He responded with a 13 page letter that expounded further on his previous claims. I took him seriously and began to re-read portions of “Free Speech in an Open Society” by Rodney Smolla. This defense of my actions should be built on a solid historical, philosophical and legal foundation. I invite all to correct me.

Mr. White claimed that “Original Artists,” the creators of art, are the only persons that should receive the fullest protection of the First Amendment based on the fact that it is self-expression that the First Amendment protects. That is his theory of speech.

In the first chapter of “Free Speech in an Open Society” entitled “The Case for an Open Culture” the three theories calling for free speech are explained. The three are, the Market Place Theory, the Free Expression and Human Dignity Theory and the Democratic Self Government Theory. All First Amendment case law is built on a foundation of one or more of these theories. Once the foundational theories of free speech are understood then the multitude of unique First Amendment complexities are better able to be appreciated. First Amendment case law is enormous covering every aspect of speech to ever create a controversy that reached a federal court.

The Market Place Theory says “truth” is best advanced by a free trade of ideas in an open market place. The market place of ideas appeals to our optimism that good will finally conquer evil. It believes truth has a stubborn persistence. Because “truth” must often battle forces of money, power and dogma we should be more protective of free speech, not less, out of concern for its vulnerability. It is better to error on the side of more speech than on the side of less speech. It justifies free speech as a means to an end – truth.

The Free Expression and Human Dignity Theory justifies free speech as an end in itself – as a psychological need for a healthy self-esteem and thus a healthy society. Speech results from the human ability to think, imagine and create. Once the freedom to think is accepted – the freedom to speak follows. It is a social need of all humans. Mr. White’s claim that the First Amendment protects self-expression falls under this theory of free speech.

The Self Governance Theory is the most accepted of the three theories of free speech. In a democracy the Self Governance Theory requires free speech as a means of participation in democracy, to pursue political truth, to facilitate majority rule, as a restraint on tyranny, corruption and ineptitude and, finally, for political stability. The felony charge for audio-recording my own arrest will be proved unconstitutional due to an application of this theory of self governance (restraint on tyranny, corruption and ineptitude).

The First Amendment protects all citizens speech rights equally. Art is protected as speech in Bery vs NYC and other recent cases such as White vs Sparks, Nevada which echoes Bery in its art definitions. The categories of art, paintings, photographs, pictures, films, drawings, engravings, prints and sculptures are listed as protected.

Note, in these cases, it is the forms of communications whose sale is protected and it it is also the speaker who is protected. The speaker is the person disseminating the speech and not necessarily the creator. This is so because the market place of ideas is made up of not only the creators of ideas but also the purveyors of ideas (speakers). Individuals are able to express themselves through the ideas they proliferate.

If it is only the “original artist” whose right it is to speak in public or to sell speech in public, the market place of ideas would be small indeed. The regulations required to enforce such a standard as “original artist” would be oppressive, as well. What happens when an artist dies? Can not the family or heirs continue to promote the art and ideas of the late artist in public or must his ideas die with him? If political slogans on t-shirts are accepted by the court why not art?

Mr. White also claims that the medium on which the message is transmitted is important in denying protection. He quotes Mastrovincenzo vs NYC – an isolated case – where the artists’ lawyers declined to appeal allowing the ruling to stand that art on hats and t-shirts is not protected. This is an outrageous case whose verdict must be challenged. This case claimed the utilitarian value of hats and t-shirts on which the message was displayed was more important in determining that the speech should not be protected than the content of the speech. This remains an unsettled issue. It contradicts Ayres vs Chicago in which political t-shirts are considered to be protected by the First Amendment. All my art is on t-shirts or art-patches and many indigenous cultures express themselves largely on utilitarian objects. We need a less culturally bias definition of art. Protecting only “fine art” is not a goal of mine. I am fighting for everyone’s right to full speech rights. I come from a tradition of community art in which everyone is a potential artist.

Mr White’s opinions seem to be more influenced by what he feels the general public understands as worthy of First Amendment protection and thus - easy to sell to the confused public. Also, mixed in there seems to be what he personally feels should be protected as “Fine Art.” He is entitled to his opinion. He says he would like - enjoy - debating the issues. So would I. Please consider this a first installment on that debate. A prelude of what is to come…. For those who would enjoin this debate I recommend reading “Free Speech in an Open Society” and the First Amendment case linked on the right. We are establishing new national standards. Your voices are powerful.

Thank you Mr. White for starting us off in this direction. I will be posting everything I get at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/free-artists/ and a copy of the final text from my relevant blog posts. Click over and join the discussion. Then send your responses to free-artists@yahoogroups.com because your voice is valuable. Help us educate America to one of its real values, Free Speech.

We just reached over 100 designs. The Art Patch Project exhibit is ready for its first adventure showing at the Art, Access and Action - the Critical Encounter Art and Media Summit at Columbia College, April 8-9, 2010.

Together, I and Robert Wapahi, veteran visual artist, musician, storyteller, art hauler when needed, we ride the 148 Express Bus to the Loop carrying the Art Patch Project exhibit and screen print demo to its destination.

He arrived well before me at the American Indian Center. He is an early bird and I am nocturnal waking late. His solution to the exhibit is a canvas with handles folded around the exhibit panels. It worked well. Our easels of 1×2 wood is the most awkward part of our load.

Robert brought a huge laundry bag for the easels. At Monroe and Michigan we switched to a bus going all the way to Roosevelt Road. From therw we hoofed it against the wind. I had my leather bag, a plastic grocery bag with the T-shirts and the exhibit panels in Roberts canvas panel hauler.

Net Neutrality is an issue too few people know about and less understand well. It is the key to maintaining access for the many to compete side by side big money corporations on a level playing field. Some corporations want to muscle the public out of a fast lane and maintain it for themselves like they did the airwaves with TV and radio 50 and 100 years ago. Educate each other for our freedom - each one teach one what this is about!

I printed all day long and gave away art-patches. My “Bicycle Love” screen is in bad shape. It needs to be remade. It was used in public many times and sometimes was not wash soon enough. Specks of old ink create a faded-speckled image. In the evening I caught the “L” Train home.

In the morning I stopped by the Screen Print Workshop to pick up different screens to print. I arrived at 10:30 to find all the activity up on the 8th floor. I met Eric Scholl one of the principal organizers and suggested I bring the exhibit up to the gathering space on the 8th floor. In 10 minutes I moved the exhibit up to the 8th floor, displayed it and found the free coffee.

This day promised to be important – but how …. why…. who would I meet? I meet Karen Ford who gave a very important presentation on why we need a Federal “Shield Law” to protect citizen journalists from intimidation and imprisonment for protecting their sources. If people can’t tell you the truth you can’t report it. If the big newspapers can’t protect themselves from the government you can’t. Don’t think it’s important. What if they want your video of the peace march to identify marchers. Now you work for them. What if they want the name of the whistle blower so now nobody wants to talk.

The shield law would supplement the First Amendment right of the press – now days that is you if you’re posting your writing, photos or video on the Internet. I spent my day printing and telling others about our struggle to change the peddlers license law and how the City is charging me with a 1st class felony for eavesdropping on a policeman arresting me for selling art for $1 on State street – a misdemeanor.

Whenever you strike out to fight for freedom you discover the enemies of freedom and the methods government officials use to deny you your freedom. In my case, I set-out to test the peddlers license law. In Illinois one law that is used to protect the state and local police from evidence of abuse or wrong doing is the unconstitutional Illinois eavesdropping law. Even though the State of Illinois and City of Chicago video and audio record police officers on duty, even though the conversation of a police officer arresting you is not a private conversation worthy of protection and even though you have the need to be able to record their conversation to bring evidence to the court and the public of how well police, public servants, are doing their jobs, the State of Illinois has made it a 1st class felony for you to audio-record the policeman arresting you.

The Featured speaker – Greg Palast – was interviewed by Chuck Mertz from the “This is Hell” radio show on WNUR. Mr. Palast is a guerrilla journalist unafraid of speaking truth to power. His talk was frank, humorous and insightful. Of great importance was the revelation that major U.S. Corporate media refused to tell the American people about the proven illegal voter disenfranchisement in Florida and other critical states in 2000, 2004 and 2008. Our democracy is in trouble from many directions at once. We need to protect our First Amendment rights and advance our freedom. We need to fight for freedom at home!

At the end of his talk during the question and answer session I told Greg about my case, how I was arrested for misdemeanor violations of the peddlers license and later that evening charged with a 1st class felony for eavesdropping on my arresting officer. “This is your right to collect information on your public officials,” I told the audience. “The Tribune and the Suntimes have yet to write about this even though I am fighting for their rights, too. But it is you the police will target with this law, not the corporate media.”

Greg Palast’s response was “This man is on a cross for you - support him”

Cell Phone Felony?

An artist speaking out against an unconstitutional City law is arrested by Chicago Police. Police charge him with a 1st class felony (4-15 years in State prison) for audio-taping his own arrest and send him to Cook County Jail on a $20,000 bond. A car is stopped for traffic violations and the passenger audio-tapes the policeman. The audio recording is aired on the WGN website and written about in the Tribune. The officer is investigated. Why is an outspoken critic on a path to prison and another citizen not charged for the same action?

The Illinois “Eavesdropping” law is overly broad. It considers every conversation to be private unless everyone within ear shot consents to being audio-recorded, and raises the sentence from a 4th class felony for audio-recording anyone to a 1st class felony for recording a policeman in public while on duty. It is up to the police officers discretion to invoke this draconian charge. Or is it?

In the case of the passenger with her cell phone the officer acknowledged the cell phone and did not charge her with eavesdropping. Maybe he thought he would be nice and take the fall for her? In the artist’s case he was arrested for selling art in public, not for eavesdropping, but later charged with felony eavesdropping. The States Attorney had to signed off on his charge. What role did the artist’s history as an activist with the stated goal of “making Chicago more friendly to artists” play in his 1st class felony charge?

I am the artist charged above and I believe I am a test case to begin enforcing the eavesdropping law on you – the public. If I am found guilty of a 1st class felony for eavesdropping on a policeman, many more citizens may be charged with this act. Why? What Chicago policeman will want to appear on WGN and be investigated when they could simply charge you with a 1st class felony for audio-recording their embarrassing moment on your cell phone? We need to change this law.

Christopher A. Drew
Executive Director
Uptown Multi-Cultural Art Center
Free Speech Artist’s Movement
umcac@art-teez.org
http://www.art-teez.org
http://www.c-drew.com/blog

TRIBUNE STORY: TRAFFIC STOP
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/ct-met-police-racial-comments-20100319,0,3145831.story

HOW MY STORY WAS REPORTED
http://www.c-drew.com/blog/comments-on-suntimes-article-creative-felony/

FEEL ENCOURAGED TO COPY AND POST OR PASS ON IN AS MANY WAYS AS POSSIBLE