For Immediate Release(October 19, 1996)
provided through OPENAIR-MARKET NET
Despite a unanimous 2nd circuit Federal Appeals Court ruling in favor of the street artist plaintiffs, real estate interests behind N.Y.C.'s more than 350 artist arrests are still denying that artists have First Amendment rights on public property and claim they will appeal the decision to the U.S. Supreme Court.
[Robert Lederman et al. v. City of New York (94 Civ.7216). Cite as: 1996 WL 580938 (2nd Cir.(N.Y.)Nos.1620, 1621, 1782, Docket 95-9089(L), 95-9131, 96-7137. United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit. Argued April 26, 1996. Decided Oct. 10, 1996. Before VAN GRAAFEILAND and MAHONEY, Circuit Judges, and CARTER, District Judge.
The lead editorial in the 10/19/96 N.Y. Times suggests that, "...a deluge of vendors" will be descending on N.Y.C. streets as a result of this ruling and points to the Giuliani administration's forcible removal of Harlems' street vendors to an empty lot as a "solution" that would apply to First Amendment protected artists as well. A.R.T.I.S.T. president and lead plaintiff in the street art case, Robert Lederman, has called this forced removal to a vacant lot, "ghettoization". He also said, "The ruling specifically indicated that paintings, photographs, limited-edition prints and sculptures were protected as compared to jewelry and crafts. This ruling will not lead to an increase in general vending". Lederman is still scheduled for a trial on three of his 13 art related arrests in Manhattan Criminal Court on 10/25 [Jury Part 4].
On Good Morning America [10/14/96] Shelly Friedman, an attorney speaking on behalf of The SoHo Alliance, City Council Member Kathryn Freed, the Fifth Avenue Association, the Madison Avenue B.I.D. and other real estate interests claimed that artists do not have a First Amendment right to sell their art on the street, despite the Appeals court ruling. Friedman said this case is not about free speech at all but is simply about money. The anti-art brief Friedman and the real estate groups previously submitted in Federal Court [95-9089] stated: "The sale of artwork does not involve communication of thoughts or ideas" and warns of, "the dangers...of allowing visual art full First Amendment protection". It goes on to state, "An artists' freedom of expression is not compromised by regulating his ability to merchandise his artwork", and, "..the sale of paintings and other artwork does not reach this high level of expression guaranteeing First Amendment protection..."
In the 10/16/96 issue of The Villager, Council Member Freed, who police officials have pointed to as a prime source of pressure to arrest artists, is quoted as saying she will, "...reintroduce legislation that would set up a committee to certify artists". Her committee would determine which of a handful of artists would be allowed to display or sell in one of a few sequestered areas of the City, directly contradicting the Appeals courts ruling that,"The City's requirement that appellants be licensed in order to sell their artwork in public spaces constitutes an unconstitutional infringement of their First Amendment rights.... paintings, photographs, prints and sculptures, such as those appellants seek to display and sell in public areas of the City, always communicate some idea or concept to those who view it, and as such are entitled to full First Amendment protection."
On 10/17 at the CB#2 public meeting at N.Y.U. Law School Freed described her plan for SoHo's street artists to be forced to set up in a narrow parking lot at Houston and Broadway after passing her certification process. Sidewalk art displays on streets would be prohibited by her proposed legislation. Many of Freed's long-time supporters in the SoHo Alliance quit the group due to Freed's persecution of street artists and formed a new organization, the SoHo Community Council, which strongly supports artists' rights.
Robert Lederman has asked all street artists to voluntarily comply with the Vending Ordinance's size and placement rules for sidewalk displays and to be especially considerate of the rights of landlords, storeowners and pedestrians during this time of transition. In a brief statement he said; "This issue always was, is and will continue to be about free speech on public property, not about congestion. The business and real estate interests that want the City to appeal this decision are simply against the average American using public property for expression. They see the display of a painting, the sale of a book or even the handing out of free literature as competition for the publicly owned space they want to exert total control over. These corporations have no hesitation about destroying First Amendment freedom if it is necessary to accomplish their aims. The sidewalk traffic in front of Rockefeller Center, Trump Tower or many of the Fifth Avenue Association's other properties causes more congestion than all of the City's sidewalk art displays combined."
For more information contact A.R.T.I.S.T. (Artists' Response To Illegal State Tactics) Phone: 718 369-2111; E-mail: ARTISTpres@aol.com or visit our web site: <http://www.openair.org/alerts/artist/nyc.html>. This site contains extensive quotes from the ruling and other up to date information including contact numbers for this issue. Council Member Freed 212 788-7722; SoHo Alliance 212 353-8466; SoHo Community Council 212-334-3209; Fifth Avenue Association 212 736-7900; N.Y.C. Corporation Counsel 212 788-0303