C Drew - Street Artist Adventures

Chi-Town News Comment Postings

8 comments »

1. Your expert, David Greene, claims the Chicago Peddler\’s License law to be constitutional on its face. I wonder if he has read it?

   He can not justify the overly broad law that Chicago has written to control traffic which, they say in court (Weinberg v Chicago), is the reason for their law. Because speech is such a basic right, First Amendment case law states the City must write a narrowly tailored law to assure their traffic needs. The law they write should harm speech in the least possible way. But the City excludes speech sales in entire Wards and any topical speech in the entire greater Loop! That is not a narrowly tailored law.

   Also, if they deny us our speech rights out of the urgent need to protect the traffic flow in the public way, they should, according to recent case law, allow us an ample alternative nearby if possible. There is not one free open-air art scene where artists can sell their art in the entire City.

   We are proving at c-drew.com/blog that the City is blocking speech using a broad brush. Our art activity does not harm the public\’s ability to walk on the public sidewalks. The \”the government has a right to regulate streets and sidewalks\” but they do not have the right to deny us our speech rights on the streets and sidewalks of a free nation.

   Thank you

   Comment by cdrew — October 15, 2008 @ 10:15 am

2. Posted by c drew from the Chi-Town News site

   MEGAN COTTRELL, 10-14-2008

   He wasn’t very familiar with Chicago’s law until I asked him to read it through with me. He said that he thought it was constitutional on it’s face after a brief look. But he did agree with you that if the police don’t know it well enough, and end up harrassing you anyway, it might end up having a chilling effect on speech. Good luck!

   Comment by cdrew — October 15, 2008 @ 10:27 am

3. CHRISTOPHER DREW, 10-15-2008

   I have provided him (David Greene)our research and position on this law and he said he would take time to consider our points and give us his educated opinion. That will still be his opinion, based on the state of law at present, as he sees it.

   We will continue to press our opinion of our speech rights. We will continue to challenge laws and policies that marginalize artists and stunt the visibility of Chicago’s creative community. Only half of the question is “What is the state of the law today?” The other half is “What should the law be according to a logical interpretation of the First Amendment?”

   We are the public. Our system allows for change. But artists and the concerned public must make that change. If - in the end - the public does not want artists seen in Chicago and Chicago artists do not want their rights to sell their art openly in Chicago - they will not have it.

   But - if artists want their rights - if artists want to live in a free society that openly values art, they must fight for their rights and what they believe in. I believe artists educated as to their speech rights under the First Amendment will understand the value of art scenes and work to educate the public. We can make change - yes - even in Chicago.

   Comment by cdrew — October 15, 2008 @ 10:34 am

4. Steve Balkin
   Economics Professor, Roosevelt University
   Director of the Self-Employment Research Project

   Free speech deserves to be in America and Chicago. Art is speech
   and is protected by the First Amendment. Flower boxes and excessive
   social control do not make cities great. Great cities have lively
   local art scenes that give streets and plazas global vibrancy. Think
   of Paris, New York, and Rome. Chicago can be a world class city. Do
   not let Mayor Daley make it world crass.

   Comment by cdrew — October 25, 2008 @ 9:44 pm

5. This is the written response of the expert, David Greene whose comments were summarized above as “the ordinance is constitutional on its face.”

   “I explained to the reporter that I am not familiar with that area of Chicago, nor that familiar with Chicago at all. And I explained that I could not comment on whether the law as applied did not make enough spaces available for expressive activity, or relegated the artists to undesirable locations.

   I only said that government does have the ability to place content neutral time, place and manner restrictions on the use of the sidewalks. I explained to the reporter the difference between using the sidewalks in a way that did not obstruct the flow of traffic and using the sidewalks for dedicated purpose, such as setting up paintings on the sidewalk and how government’s ability to regulate varied with respect to each.

   I explained that I don’t like ordinances like these. But unfortunately, as a general matter, courts have approved of them.

   I talked about how there were some things that the Chicago ordinance did much better than others I have seen. That it at least tried to define the “noncommercial speech” in such a fairly clear way. And that it did not put visual artists on unequal footing with those selling literature (as was one of the problems with the New York ordinance).

   I don’t disagree with you that the government cannot regulate with a broad brush.”

   David Greene Oakland, Calif.-based First Amendment Project,

   Comment by cdrew — October 25, 2008 @ 10:41 pm

6. i am a chicago artist who sometimes sells my artwork, in this case one of the most protected types of speech, political buttons, on chicago’s streets. or at least i did while i was one of the “privileged” who had my rights acknowledged.

   in order to obtain this “privilege” i only had to spend the day going back and forth between city hall and the state of illinois building, give the bureaucrats my social security number, and all my other info, including my address, which i am fortunate to have, get a new number, file monthly sales tax reports (even if i had no sales), cough up a couple of checks, get my picture taken, and, oh, by the way, i had to not owe the city any other money for anything.

   which is where i lost my license to exercise my rights. you see, several years before all this, i had some parking tickets. as it happens, i did not deserve these tickets. streets and san had towed my car after an accident, and sorta forgot where they put it. tickets ensued. attempts to argue said tickets failed. being a sort of stubborn person, i refused to pay them.

   several years passed, and i had forgotten about them. surely there is some sort of statute of limitations on parking tickets. a few months after getting my peddler’s permit, the city found the old tickets. and revoked my permit.

   now, this was not an insurmountable problem for me. in fact, my dearest husband paid the tickets over my objections. but i just never quite got around to documenting that the tickets had been paid,

   coughing up another check, no doubt, and spending another day doing the bureaucratic shuffle. for something that i am supposedly guaranteed in the FIRST amendment to the constitution.

   now, i have made trips to washington dc for rallies and marches, and taken my buttons with me. you see, on the mall in washington, although other types of peddling are restricted, the selling of books, newspapers, buttons and posters is acknowledge for what it most clearly is- protected speech.

   important speech.

   that i am unable to practice this speech without some small recompense is common sense. and that i may do so in anonymity is also implicit. i also confess that i have sold and attempted to sell buttons in chicago without my license.

   at big rallies, i have never been challenged. at smaller rallies, especially those that might be considered to be groups of the so called “loonie left” i am routinely run off.

   is it that the city doesn’t want too many witnesses? or that these smaller groups have fewer rights? i wonder.

   i am a lucky person who can afford these indignities, if i should choose to. how many other artists cannot make that same statement? i am also lucky that the money from selling these buttons is not a big part of my income. how many other artists can make the same statement?

   i am also lucky that i no longer owe the city of chicago for much of anything. no tickets that i haven’t paid. no water bill that i haven’t paid. no taxes that i cannot pay. no fines, no judgments, nothing to stand in my way. and nothing hanging in the balance.

   but we all know that there are few artists in this lucky circumstance. most need every dollar to keep body and soul together. most need to get out there and work all the time. many have some sort of debt to the city. some ticket. some fine. many cannot afford the fees, which are in the hundreds of dollars. and not a few would have a hard time just navigating the process, whether because of language barriers, physical barriers, or just the shear time, energy and patience required. and why should we?

   and why should we pay for an extra permit to be locked into a few spaces in the loop?

   clearly, those with more money have more rights here. those who need it least can have the most. apparently, some people are more equal than others under our constitution. and those that might shed some light on this situation? those that might offer the kind of clear picture of the situation in which we find ourselves? sorry, they might block the sidewalk, as we hurry off to work. and we wouldn’t want them to have to stop and think, would we?

   apparently not in chicago.

   Comment by cdrew — October 25, 2008 @ 10:55 pm

7. NANCY DREW, 10-26-2008
   Dear Chris, Good luck with your quest. Art is universal speech. You might not understand the language another artist speaks but you can always understand her art. Be strong. (your sister) Nancy Drew

   Comment by cdrew — October 26, 2008 @ 8:07 pm

8. KAMI CHEATEM, 10-26-2008
   It saddens me to no end that artists have to fight this ridiculous battle. Art does no harm to anyone. Art enriches and makes life more vibrant. Artists have a right to create and sell their art in open spaces. Chicago prides itself on being a “world class city”, but this law is yet another shameful blemish. It’s time to take a stand and make things right.

   Comment by cdrew — October 26, 2008 @ 8:08 pm

Copy link for RSS feed for comments on this post or for TrackBack URI

Leave a comment

Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>