California law concerning free speech is protected even on private property such as shopping centers. https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/447/74
Important cases and laws concerning busking
Chase v Ocean City
https://casetext.com/case/chase-v-town-of-ocean-city/?fbclid=IwAR0FMzcMtQJiKeSpQSeaSY_r0H8Q1oQ-16kUOJE7wIFtqGX5HCWo_fGQSzM
This case covers spray paint artist Mark Chase and his lawsuit against ocean city
Reno Nv, RMC5.14: This is the municipal code for Reno, NV which discusses how art, and busking are protected expressive activities.
https://www.reno.gov/home/showdocument?id=69118
- Sparks Vs White: which protections of displaying art and selling art as well as definitions of what is considered protected art.
http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-9th-circuit/1300114.html - Berry Vs New York: is a court case about first amendment rights and busking: It basically explains that an artist has the right to display and sell his or her art in the public Forum as art qualifies as expressive materials.
http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-2nd-circuit/1182584.html
- Turley vs the city of New York : this case concerns music and music levels...
http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-2nd-circuit/1374333.html
http://cardozolawreview.com/amplified-speech/
Music ban unconstitutional https://thecrimereport.org/2012/12/14/2012-12-car-music-ban-struck-down/
\
https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=5915492581390576752&q=Hassay+v.+Mayor,+955+F.Supp.2d+505+%282013%29&hl=en&as_sdt=40000006
http://www.buskersadvocates.org/saaamplification.html
Venice Beach Boardwalk musician legal battle - US District Judge Pregerson blocks Venice boardwalk lottery permit system and amplification ban in Dowd and all vs City of Los Angles - October 21, 2010 (Dowd v. City of Los Angeles, No. CV 09-06731 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 21, 2010)
- District Court Injunction opinion: vbbc.files.wordpress.com/2010/10/venice-dowd-injunction.doc
- Los Angels Times article: http://articles.latimes.com/2010/oct/27/local/la-me-venice-vendors-20101027
"Other courts have struck down amplified sound restrictions less sweeping than the total ban on amplified sound on the Venice Boardwalk. See, e.g., Deegan v. City of Ithaca, 444 F.3d 135 (2d Cir. 2006) (holding noise regulation as applied to prohibit any sound that could be heard 25 feet from its source in downtown pedestrian mall was not narrowly tailored); Doe, 968 F.2d at 89 (holding regulation prohibiting operating an audio device in a manner exceeding 60 decibels at 50 feet was not narrowly tailored as applied to Lafayette Park because "[b]y no reasonable measure does Lafayette Park display the characteristics of a setting in which the government may lay claim to a legitimate interest in maintaining tranquility"); Beckerman v. City of Tupelo, Miss., 664 F.2d 502, 516 (5th Cir. 1981) (holding ban on amplified sound in residential zones overbroad because "the ordinance extends its total and non-discretionary prohibition to areas which have not been shown to be incompatible with sound equipment"); Reeves v. McConn, 631 F.2d 377, 384 (5th Cir. 1980) (holding amplified sound ban in downtown business district was not narrowly tailored because "there is probably no more appropriate place for reasonably amplified free speech than the streets and sidewalks of a downtown business district"); Burbridge v. Sampson, 74 F. Supp. 2d 940, 951 (C.D. Cal. 1999) (Collins, J.) (granting preliminary injunction against rule banning amplified sound on community college campus except in three "preferred areas" because the defendants "failed to rebut Plaintiffs' claim that the 'preferred areas' do not meet the 'ample alternatives for communications' requirement for reasonable content-neutral, time place, and manner regulation"); Lionhart v. Foster, 100 F. Supp. 2d 383 (E.D. La. 1999) (holding that law "regulat[ing] the production of sound in excess of 55 decibels within 10 feet of hospitals or churches during posted services" was "unreasonably overbroad in the context of normal activities on public streets and in public parks").
Of course, even in a traditional public forum, reasonable restrictions on the use of amplified sound are permitted, so long as they are narrowly tailored to serve a significant government interest. But, because "streets, sidewalks, parks and other similar public places are so historically associated with the exercise of First Amendment rights access to them for the purpose of exercising such rights cannot constitutionally be denied broadly and absolutely." Hudgens v. NLRB, 424 u.s. 507, 515 (1976) (quotation marks and citation omitted). The Cit:y's absolute ban on the use of amplified sound twenty-four hours per day on the Boardwalk except in a limited number of specially designated spaces simply sweeps too broadly and does not materially advance the City's proffered interest. Because Plaintiffs are likely to succeed on their claim that the amplified sound ban is facially overbroad (and because, as mentioned earlier, the balance of hardships and the public interest weigh in favor of enjoining regulations that violate the First Amendment), the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs' motion for preliminary injunction with respect to LAMC § 43.15 (F) (5)."
DEAN D. PREGERSON
United States District Judge
Of course, even in a traditional public forum, reasonable restrictions on the use of amplified sound are permitted, so long as they are narrowly tailored to serve a significant government interest. But, because "streets, sidewalks, parks and other similar public places are so historically associated with the exercise of First Amendment rights access to them for the purpose of exercising such rights cannot constitutionally be denied broadly and absolutely." Hudgens v. NLRB, 424 u.s. 507, 515 (1976) (quotation marks and citation omitted). The Cit:y's absolute ban on the use of amplified sound twenty-four hours per day on the Boardwalk except in a limited number of specially designated spaces simply sweeps too broadly and does not materially advance the City's proffered interest. Because Plaintiffs are likely to succeed on their claim that the amplified sound ban is facially overbroad (and because, as mentioned earlier, the balance of hardships and the public interest weigh in favor of enjoining regulations that violate the First Amendment), the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs' motion for preliminary injunction with respect to LAMC § 43.15 (F) (5)."
DEAN D. PREGERSON
United States District Judge
- Lee Davenport Vs Alexandria Virginia, is about music, and volume levels as well as a musician's first amendment protections:
http://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F2/710/148/40897/ - Goldstien Vs Nantucket also is a case which defines busking and the law: though I do not have the case file location information about it exists on a buskers rights web page located here: http://www.buskersadvocates.org/saalegalCtGoldstein.htm
- Perry vs the city of los angeles is about a musician who busks and sells cds of his music... and the fact that both performance of music and the sales of original cds are both protected by the first amendment http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-9th-circuit/1246214.html
- aclu case about buskers winning in honolulu: https://www.aclu.org/news/aclu-wins-artistic-expression-lawsuit-behalf-waikiki-street-performers?redirect=cpredirect/10909
- Hunt vs city of los angeles about shea butter and how even a Product such as shea butter can have first amendment protections. http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2011/03/22/09-55750.pdf
- Magic Mike Berger vs the city of Seatle and is about ballon twisting and the constitutional protections granted by the first amendment http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-9th-circuit/1241365.html there is a new case file to this case. that shows that the city appealed the decision. Yet the court declined the appeal that case can be read here. http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-9th-circuit/1042427.html
Judge shoots down lottery permitting http://articles.latimes.com/2010/oct/27/local/la-me-venice-vendors-20101027
Dowd vs Los Angeles
Busking permits are illegal article http://gravitydefiance.net/wp/yes-busking-permits-in-the-usa-are-illegal/
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/5/3331 oath of office law which all police, and law enforcement swear to as all lawyers and judges and city council members, mayors, governors, congress and so on must abide by to take their office!
San diego city code prohibits the abridgement of first amendment rights! Read this pdf for more information http://docs.sandiego.gov/memooflaw/MS-2011-16.pdf
Woman in palm springs california settles lawsuit for 30,000 with the city of palm springs over loitering laws and poetry!
This is St Louis v the Constitution.
https://vlaa.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/Freedom-of-Speech-and-the-Street-Performer.pdf
this case concerns using profanity in public.
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/403/15/
States must have a better reason than a concern for generally disturbing the peace when they ban displaying an expletive in a public space.
https://vlaa.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/Freedom-of-Speech-and-the-Street-Performer.pdf
this case concerns using profanity in public.
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/403/15/
States must have a better reason than a concern for generally disturbing the peace when they ban displaying an expletive in a public space.
No comments:
Post a Comment