Busking - do you need a license of some sort?...

[erivel]

I remember when I lived near Boston and that permits were required.

[Bluepoet]

http://www.mtv.com/music/artist/forb...3/lyrics.jhtml

Check this out...Steve Forbert was a street musician, in New York City, when he was "discovered". (His first recording, is excellent, btw, simply because no one messed with his "raw" talent, too much.)

[jyee]

Originally Posted by Cabbitt

I said the 'intent' of the 1st Amendment. I was not alluding to the "decades" of manipulation by lawyers, which has left the original intent of the founders in shatters.

Actually, that would more accurately be by judges, not lawyers... the lawyers are the ones who plead cases, but it's up to the judges to weigh them and interpret the law. "manipulation by lawyers" would imply that they'd put one over on the judges... at which point, i'd be more upset about gullible judges and the people who appointed them than manipulative lawyers.

For what it's worth, I think Thomas Jefferson had no illusions about any sort of strict interpretation to whatever people thought was his original intent. Especially when he wrote:

"I am not an advocate for frequent changes in laws and constitutions, but laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths discovered and manners and opinions change, with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain ever under the regimens of their barbarous ancestors."

While i'd mostly agree with your stance (that the 1st am needs to be protected), busking is not the pure freedom of speech or art that it seems you think it is - simply because in the most common form it's a solicitation for money in a public place... there are other factors that give government the right to have some say. it's one thing to restrict when, where and how loud you can say/sing something, and another thing altogether to censor what someone says/sings.

[Cabbitt]

"Actually, that would more accurately be by judges, not lawyers"



Do you know of any judges who are not lawyers? I don't.




"...simply because in the most common form it's a solicitation for money in a public place..."



Very few buskers are doing it for a living. There are only a few American cities where that is possible. Most buskers are doing it to provide entertainment, free of charge, to the public. If that isn't 'pure' art, I don't know what is.




Cabbitt
www.dunnellononline.com

[jyee]

Originally Posted by Cabbitt

Do you know of any judges who are not lawyers? I don't.

that's why i said "more accurately".. while nearly all judges were at one point lawyers, your statement inaccurately attributed the power of constitutional interpretation to the larger superset of lawyers in general.

Originally Posted by Cabbitt

Very few buskers are doing it for a living. There are only a few American cities where that is possible. Most buskers are doing it to provide entertainment, free of charge, to the public. If that isn't 'pure' art, I don't know what is.

I said nothing of making a living from it... that's not a legal concern. Similarly, the government doesnt care if you're actually making a living from or if your primary occupation is selling alcohol... you still need a license in most places to do so. As for being free, all of the buskers i've ever seen have hats or cases or other containers for donations... that's different from free public performances... especially since it has pan-handling implications.

As i said in my previous post, the first amendment does need protection, but busking is slightly, and in significant ways, different from just freedom of speech. To say that it's only a freedom of speech issue is an oversimplification.

[Cabbitt]

Originally Posted by jyee

that's why i said "more accurately".. while nearly all judges were at one point lawyers, your statement inaccurately attributed the power of constitutional interpretation to the larger superset of lawyers in general.



I said nothing of making a living from it... that's not a legal concern. Similarly, the government doesnt care if you're actually making a living from or if your primary occupation is selling alcohol... you still need a license in most places to do so. As for being free, all of the buskers i've ever seen have hats or cases or other containers for donations... that's different from free public performances... especially since it has pan-handling implications.

As i said in my previous post, the first amendment does need protection, but busking is slightly, and in significant ways, different from just freedom of speech. To say that it's only a freedom of speech issue is an oversimplification.

Nothing like putting too fine a point on it, Counselor.



"that's why i said "more accurately".. while nearly all judges were at one point lawyers, your statement inaccurately attributed the power of constitutional interpretation to the larger superset of lawyers in general."



Phew! That one gave me a headache.



My statement may have been inaccurate in your estimation, but yours is an obvious dodge. In your initial statement, you said:



"Actually, that would more accurately be by judges, not lawyers... the lawyers are the ones who plead cases, but it's up to the judges to weigh them and interpret the law. "manipulation by lawyers" would imply that they'd put one over on the judges... at which point, i'd be more upset about gullible judges and the people who appointed them than manipulative lawyers."


I'm still waiting to hear about a judge who is not a lawyer.



"Similarly, the government doesnt care if you're actually making a living from or if your primary occupation is selling alcohol... you still need a license in most places to do so."



Just what does that have to do with busking? I've never seen a busker selling alcohol.



"especially since it has pan-handling implications"



A guy standing on the street playing a Taylor guitar is hardly 'panhandling'. Wouldn't you agree with that, Counselor?




Cabbitt
www.dunnellononline.com

[jyee]

Originally Posted by Cabbitt

My statement may have been inaccurate in your estimation, but yours is an obvious dodge... I'm still waiting to hear about a judge who is not a lawyer.

it's not a dodge. in your statement you blamed lawyers for the erosion of the constitution... i felt that was over reaching, and in some sense, unfair to lawyers. There are a few lawyers here (e.g. Sandy) who are in no way responsible for the erosion of the constitution. If you're going to level blame, it's best if you do so accurately.

ridiculous example dialog:
a: drivers are bad because they kill people (lawyers are bad because they erode the constitution)
b: drivers aren't bad, just the one's who get drunk and run people over (lawyers aren't bad, it's just the ones who become judges and poorly interpret law)
a: well all drunk drivers are drivers, so all drivers are bad (you're still waiting to hear about a judge who is not a lawyer)

see how those parallels work and why me showing you a judge who is not a lawyer is irrelevant to your initial premise being inaccurate?

Originally Posted by Cabbitt

Just what does that have to do with busking? I've never seen a busker selling alcohol.

I said that busking has a component of financial involvement. You responded that most, nearly all, buskers do not make a living busking. My rebuttal was that making a living at something is irrelevant. The alcohol example points out that the government has a right to regulate financial actions (selling alcohol), whether or not someone is making a living at it or not.

Originally Posted by Cabbitt

A guy standing on the street playing a Taylor guitar is hardly 'panhandling'. Wouldn't you agree with that, Counselor?

Actually, no I wouldn't concede that without knowing more of the situation. What if the guy playing the taylor finished a song and said, "If you feel inclined to drop some money into the open guitar case, i'd appreciate it."? What if it were a singer without a guitar, who made the same statement? What if nobody heard the music and they just happened to walk up when the statement was made.

Yes, a free public performance with no solicitation or acceptance of donations is hardly panhandling... but most buskers leave a case open or a hat or some other container for donations. If it truly is a donation (i.e. you don't have to toss in change), then it really isn't much different from panhandling. If it's not seen as a donation, but rather a payment for some entertainment service... both cases are fairly subject to laws outside of the 1st am.

[banjar]

Uhh....how is playing music on the street, even with a tip jar, "soliciting"


solicit


Main Entry:
so·lic·it Listen to the pronunciation of solicit
Pronunciation:
\sə-ˈli-sət\
Function:
verb
Etymology:
Middle English, to disturb, promote, from Anglo-French solliciter, from Latin sollicitare to disturb, from sollicitus anxious, from sollus whole (from Oscan; akin to Greek holos whole) + citus, past participle of ciēre to move — more at safe, -kinesis
Date:
15th century

transitive verb1 a: to make petition to : entreat b: to approach with a request or plea <solicited Congress for funding>2: to urge (as one's cause) strongly3 a: to entice or lure especially into evil b: to proposition (someone) especially as or in the character of a prostitute4: to try to obtain by usually urgent requests or pleas <solicited donations>intransitive verb1: to make solicitation : importune2of a prostitute : to offer to have sexual relations with someone for money
synonyms see ask

[Chicago Sandy]

Originally Posted by Cabbitt

\
Very few buskers are doing it for a living. There are only a few American cities where that is possible. Most buskers are doing it to provide entertainment, free of charge, to the public. If that isn't 'pure' art, I don't know what is.

Well, then, I know what it's NOT, and that would be "busking!"

Maybe in your neck of Florida it is customary for musicians to go out and entertain in the streets, with no expectation of any kind of compensation, just for the joy of it and exposure, but that's not the case in most places and certainly not in cities and towns where there are communities of buskers. Most of them most certainly DO perform for money (how many closed guitar cases or absence of tip jars have you seen in front of street musicians?). What separates busking from begging is that they are ostensibly providing a service that the public wants; but to many a commuter hurrying through in a tiled subway tunnel or stuck waiting on a platform, whether a musician playing and singing (especially with amplification) is providing a "service" that is desirable is a matter for debate. That goes double if foot traffic is slowed or the musician is performing loudly in a genre the commuter does not like; in that case, the "service" is no more welcome than the unsolicited windshield cleaning performed by beggars at intersections during rush hour.

I have nothing against busking and I've done it myself, but I can see how it can constitute disturbing the peace and obstructing traffic if done without rules and restraints. No freedom in the Constitution is granted completely free of reasonable regulation by the government (the speculative right to even yell "fire" falsely in a crowded theater was part of Justice Black's minority opinion, which as such carries no legal weight). Parades and large demonstrations require permits too--in some jurisdictions like Cook County, you even need a permit to hold a large picnic in a county forest preserve and even to hold a block party. You have the freedom to own and operate real and personal property, but you must also abide by laws mandating its responsible use, e.g., building codes, housing ordinances (landlord/tenant), construction permits, environmental regulations, zoning, vehicle registrations and traffic laws, etc. You have the freedom to come and go as you please, but that does not mean traffic or even jaywalking laws are unconstitutional.

Requiring a permit for a nominal fee demonstrates the busker's commitment to performing responsibly--i.e., in such a way as to not create a nuisance or safety hazard. And in every jurisdiction requiring permits for buskers, there is a provision waiving the fee for those who claim to be indigent, just as there are similar court fee waivers for indigent litigants.

If you feel that the laws and regulations outlined above are unconstitutional, well, then we are operating in parallel political universes and no amount of further discussion can prove fruitful.

[Cabbitt]

Originally Posted by Chicago Sandy

Well, then, I know what it's NOT, and that would be "busking!"

Maybe in your neck of Florida it is customary for musicians to go out and entertain in the streets, with no expectation of any kind of compensation, just for the joy of it and exposure, but that's not the case in most places and certainly not in cities and towns where there are communities of buskers. Most of them most certainly DO perform for money (how many closed guitar cases or absence of tip jars have you seen in front of street musicians?). What separates busking from begging is that they are ostensibly providing a service that the public wants; but to many a commuter hurrying through in a tiled subway tunnel or stuck waiting on a platform, whether a musician playing and singing (especially with amplification) is providing a "service" that is desirable is a matter for debate. That goes double if foot traffic is slowed or the musician is performing loudly in a genre the commuter does not like; in that case, the "service" is no more welcome than the unsolicited windshield cleaning performed by beggars at intersections during rush hour.

I have nothing against busking and I've done it myself, but I can see how it can constitute disturbing the peace and obstructing traffic if done without rules and restraints. No freedom in the Constitution is granted completely free of reasonable regulation by the government (the speculative right to even yell "fire" falsely in a crowded theater was part of Justice Black's minority opinion, which as such carries no legal weight). Parades and large demonstrations require permits too--in some jurisdictions like Cook County, you even need a permit to hold a large picnic in a county forest preserve and even to hold a block party. You have the freedom to own and operate real and personal property, but you must also abide by laws mandating its responsible use, e.g., building codes, housing ordinances (landlord/tenant), construction permits, environmental regulations, zoning, vehicle registrations and traffic laws, etc. You have the freedom to come and go as you please, but that does not mean traffic or even jaywalking laws are unconstitutional.

Requiring a permit for a nominal fee demonstrates the busker's commitment to performing responsibly--i.e., in such a way as to not create a nuisance or safety hazard. And in every jurisdiction requiring permits for buskers, there is a provision waiving the fee for those who claim to be indigent, just as there are similar court fee waivers for indigent litigants.

If you feel that the laws and regulations outlined above are unconstitutional, well, then we are operating in parallel political universes and no amount of further discussion can prove fruitful.

All that proves is that Shakespeare' Henry VI was right, after all.




Cabbitt
www.dunnellononline.com

[jyee]

Originally Posted by banjar

Uhh....how is playing music on the street, even with a tip jar, "soliciting"
...
transitive verb1 a: to make petition to : entreat b: to approach with a request or plea <solicited Congress for funding>...
synonyms see ask

looks like you nearly answered your own question there. it's solicitation if the performer says something along the lines of "If you enjoyed the music, please drop some money into the jar." Such statements are a petition, request, plea or asking for money.

but yeah, i'm thinking the prostitution related definition probably doesnt apply... of course there is the naked cowboy guy in manhattan... not sure what his deal is.

[flaggerphil]

Originally Posted by Bob1131

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Busking

"These performers have not always been called buskers. The term busking was first noted in the English language around the middle 1860s. The word busk comes from the Spanish root word buscar, meaning "to seek" – buskers are literally seeking fame and fortune.[5][6] In obsolete French it evolved to busquer for "seek, prowl" and was generally used to describe prostitutes. In Italian it evolved to buscare which meant "procure, gain" and in Italy buskers are called buscarsi or, more simply, Buskers (see loan word).
From the Renaissance to the early 1900s, busking was called minstrelsy in Europe and English-speaking lands. Before that, itinerant musicians were known by the French term troubadours. In old French the term jongleurs was also used to describe buskers. In northern France they were known as trouveres. In old German buskers were known as minnesingers and spielleute. The term busk is also used in music when a musician has to play something quickly from scratch, by ear or at sight, as in: I'll just busk it."

Thanks! Now I'll let everyone get back to the debate on constitutional law...

[DenverSteve]

[QUOTE=Cabbitt;1466993] Subsequent ‘rulings’ notwithstanding, it does not say “except in matters in which the state has a legitimate interest”. If the “State” can tell a citizen when, where and how he is ‘permitted’ to freely exercise his 1st Amendment rights, it negates the intent of the Amendment.

It doesn't negate the intent of the right. It protects the general public from having someone reciting Shakespere, or busking, or gathering or creating a disturbance at 2 a.m. outside your bedroom window. In other words quality of life ordinances or common decency.

“The last thing would be to stand your ground waiving a copy of the First Amendment…”

It is up to the individual to decide his course of action. You can ask ‘permission’ of the authorities, pay your license fee and get your ‘vendor’s license’. They will tell you when, where, and for how long you are permitted to play. Next week, they will tell you what you cannot play.

That's the job of the Sheriff's dept. or police dept.- to maintain public order. The exact reason for noise ordinaces and times when trash trucks can operate in residential neighborhoods and when you can use power tools outside, and how loud your radio in your car or exhaust can be. Your "right" to express yourself (not yours specifically but the general public's) ends where it becomes a public nuisance, disturbance or dangerous to others.

You can recite Shakespere but you can't do it standing in traffic or blocking access to a building. Unfortunately most ordinances are created to enforce manners on those who would otherwise run amuk and bother others. I don't get to say amuk very much.

[Cabbitt]

[QUOTE=PastorSteve;1467716]

Originally Posted by Cabbitt

Subsequent ‘rulings’ notwithstanding, it does not say “except in matters in which the state has a legitimate interest”. If the “State” can tell a citizen when, where and how he is ‘permitted’ to freely exercise his 1st Amendment rights, it negates the intent of the Amendment.

It doesn't negate the intent of the right. It protects the general public from having someone reciting Shakespere, or busking, or gathering or creating a disturbance at 2 a.m. outside your bedroom window. In other words quality of life ordinances or common decency.

“The last thing would be to stand your ground waiving a copy of the First Amendment…”

It is up to the individual to decide his course of action. You can ask ‘permission’ of the authorities, pay your license fee and get your ‘vendor’s license’. They will tell you when, where, and for how long you are permitted to play. Next week, they will tell you what you cannot play.

That's the job of the Sheriff's dept. or police dept.- to maintain public order. The exact reason for noise ordinaces and times when trash trucks can operate in residential neighborhoods and when you can use power tools outside, and how loud your radio in your car or exhaust can be. Your "right" to express yourself (not yours specifically but the general public's) ends where it becomes a public nuisance, disturbance or dangerous to others.

You can recite Shakespere but you can't do it standing in traffic or blocking access to a building. Unfortunately most ordinances are created to enforce manners on those who would otherwise run amuk and bother others. I don't get to say amuk very much.

I'm guessing that not many here have ever actually busked.


(Playing on the streets for laughs a few times is really not busking; although it would be funny to see a lawyer busking!)


Do you know that Sting was a busker? George Burns? John Bon Jovi? Tracy Chapman has been mentioned. There are many others, too numerous to mention. Busking is a great tradition in this country, and it will not be shackled by the lawyers, merchants, town fathers, or the Gestapo.
Experienced buskers know not to block access to buildings, not to cause a disturbance, and not to create a nuisance.


Actually, I don't believe that it's the busking that disturbs you guys. It's the freedom. Slaves always resent a free man.



I hope that I am still "permitted" to speak my mind without being subjected to condescension. After all, I never passed the Bar.




Cabbitt
www.dunnellononline.com

[Bob1131]

Cabbitt,

You were doing really well in this debate until your statement "Actually, I don't believe that it's the busking that disturbs you guys. It's the freedom. Slaves always resent a free man."

That is adhominem, which is the refuge of a lost position, and is unnecessary. Your points were well taken, but resorting to adhominem attacks just diminishes your credibility and the soundness of your position.