Click Here to return to the

Blue Collar Politics Blog.

To a Directory of Mr.Lederman's Essays

Artistic expression
a criminal offence?

NYC vs. Free Speech:

An analysis of the current threat to
street artists and vendors in NYC

by Robert Lederman
robert.lederman@worldnet.att.net
August 26, 2002

Fake art advocates, bait and switch con games and good cop-bad cop illegal enforcement are being used to eviscerate free speech on NYC streets. Here's an analysis of the technique and how a City Council member is using dirty tricks to pressure street artists into giving up their rights.

Their Strategy To Defeat Us:
Good Cop, Bad Cop
Followed By Bait And Switch

The Bloomberg Administration and SoHo's
City Council member,
Alan Gerson,

are trying very hard not to repeat the Giuliani administrations failure to crush the street artist movement. Their new strategy can be described as good cop, bad cop followed by bait and switch.

Keep in mind that the good and the bad cop are working together against artists and vendors and that the bait and switch has been carefully worked out before this con game ever gets started.

In this context,
good cop bad cop works like this:

The police are ordered to keep harassing artists and vendors, seizing their displays, confiscating merchandise, irrationally ordering them to move their stands and otherwise making them feel hopelessly under attack. That's the bad cop part, intended to create a chronic feeling of desperation and a sense that much worse is yet to come.

When the police lied and told artists on West Broadway in April that there was a new court ruling and they would all be thrown off the streets - and then crushed their displays in a garbage truck - this is a perfect example of playing bad cop. Illegal and irrational enforcement is a deliberate part of the strategy, not an accident.
If the NYPD were only doing reasonable enforcement where and when it was objectively needed, most artists and vendors would be very willing to comply with their efforts.

Once the artists and vendors are feeling sufficiently insecure, it's time for the good cops to show up. An aide to a City Council member or fake vendor-advocate lawyer begins approaching vendors and artists and offering to help them 'find a solution' to the police harassment. This is now taking place all over the City.
These seemingly helpful individuals just happen to have close relationships with those behind the illegal enforcement. Many artists and vendors who are focused only on sales and keeping their vending spot are relieved to turn over their struggle to these fake advocates. It seems like an easy way out involving little or no effort, no expense and no risk.

Once you are softened up by the good cop, bad cop routine its time for bait and switch. Across the City they are trying to identify artists and vendors who are willing to sell out in exchange for a reserved spot, a guaranteed permit, freedom from all harassment or some other promised favor - that's the bait.

Among those doing the searching for such artists and vendors are a lawyer from a fake vendors rights group, a uniformed NYPD officer who has admitted to doing political work for the Parks Department and various supporters of Alan Gerson. Parks Department officials have been aggressively trying to identify artists who want a return to the permit system by pretending to sympathize with their problems over competition for sales or in getting their favorite spot in front of the Met.

The idea is to use whichever artists and vendors they can dig up to create the illusion that 'the vendors and artists themselves agreed to new rules for vending - such as a permit diminishing our rights. To flatter these artists, they are telling them how wonderful it is that they are 'independent', that they are being 'included in the process' and that being part of a street artist group that protests against elected officials is 'no longer necessary'.

The only thing the artists and vendors who get taken in by this con are independent from is common sense and a knowledge of the history of street artists and vendors in NYC - in other words, of their own history.

To make their offer to such artists and vendors more appealing, they are trying to pinpoint exactly what they want by holding meetings with them and then offering something at least partly like it, however irrational, illegal or unconstitutional it might be. If you carefully examine their statements over time you will find that they say just about anything they think will appeal to you and change their position repeatedly depending on who they are talking to.

If they are addressing an artist, they talk about there being too many so-called illegal jewelry and craft vendors. Artists are being told they should organize a community watch to call the police on these vendors. Artists who consider themselves superior to other street artists are being told they will set up a special certification process to weed out those who are 'unqualified and unprofessional'. When these fake advocates talk to a veteran vendor, the story changes completely to there being too many street artists and art vendors competing for the spots controlled by vets. When they are addressing a craft or jewelry vendor, the story changes yet again and they claim they are trying to help them all get permits and to have their rights recognized by the City. Whatever they think you will respond to they will tell you.

Don't be suckered in by these lies and false offers. The City has a long-standing animosity to all forms of vending and there is no area of New York where vendors and street artists are more hated than in SoHo. This conflict between the City and vendors has gone on without interruption for more than 100 years and it is not about to stop now. Whatever promises they are offering are the bait; soon enough you will see the switch.

To those who oppose vending, the most original and talented street artist is no different than someone selling bootleg CDs. I have an extensive archive of documents from our opponents to back up this statement. When they offer you something (a reserved spot; a special classification for artists; creating a certain area set aside for artists or craftspeople only) they are playing bait and switch on you.

There is a conflict between the City and vendors that needs to be resolved but it has little to do with congestion, competition, taxes, illegal vendors or any of the other popular explanations. The vending problem facing Bloomberg and Gerson has two aspects.

The first is maintaining the demand for commercial real estate, especially stores.

As long as vending on the public sidewalk is allowed there is measurably less demand for people selling things to come up with the money it costs to rent a store. Real estate interests run this entire City. They provide most of the campaign donations that get people elected to public office. For them, vending is a direct threat to their commercial rental income. Eliminate or severely limit vending and you automatically increase the demand for commercial rentals, especially in a time like this when demand is way down.

The second reason the City is now gearing up a new strategy against vendors is in preparation for the Street Furniture Initiative. Since 1993 the City has been trying to complete a billion dollar contract to install benches, electronic kiosks, bus shelters, phone booths, computer terminals and pay toilets on the sidewalks in the exact same spots where vending is now legal - 20 feet from a door on sidewalks that are at least 12 feet wide. These objects will all carry corporate ads, which is their main reason for existing. Street artists and vendors are in the exact spots where they want to install these street furniture/advertising billboards.

Many Community Boards are against the Street Furniture Initiative idea. On this particular issue we have some allies who are normally our opponents. Like planters, these street furniture objects will permanently congest the sidewalk, block store windows etc. Bloomberg came out last week in the NY Times and Post as a major supporter of this plan.

Here are brief excerpts from the news articles:

See: NY Post 8/10/02

PAY TOILETS MAKE CITIES FLU$H: MIKE

Mayor Bloomberg moved forward yesterday with a long-stalled plan to bring public toilets to the streets of New York, asking the City Council to resurrect the effort with a massive new contract. Bloomberg submitted legislation to the council that would allow the city to ask for bids to run bus shelters, newsstands and public toilets - all with matching designs. The winner would pay the city millions for the right to operate and advertise on the street furniture.

NY Times 8/10/02

Mayor Says Pay Toilets
Would Help City's Budget

Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg has submitted legislation to the City Council that would award a single company a "coordinated street furniture franchise" to provide public toilets and revamp and maintain bus shelters, newsstands, news racks and benches...Under the plan, a private company would pay a fee to the city for the right to sell advertising on the structures; the company would design, install and maintain them. Mr. Bloomberg said the placement of the structures would be important, given the potential effects on traffic and pedestrian safety.

What the City plans to do with artists and vendors is to temporarily relocate them to one or more special areas in order to make way for this street furniture/advertising. Does being relocated to and concentrated in a special-area before being eliminated sound familiar? Intro #160 is a key step in this plan. Once there is a permit the City can immediately ban First Amendment-protected vendors from any of the thousands of legal vending spots where they want to install the advertising.

The Final Solution For
Art Vending Starts With Permits,
Certification And A Special Area

NYC street artists need no license or permit to vend because we are protected by First Amendment freedom of speech. Despite what many artists want to believe, our freedom from a license or permit is not because we are artists or that we help the economy or because art adds to the City's culture. Defending full First Amendment rights for everyone - including whichever craftspeople and jewelers may be as entitled to it as painters and photographers - is the only way we can preserve our own full rights on the streets. Any lessening or exclusion of the rights of other First Amendment-protected vendors harms us all.

It may not fit every artists ideal of convenience and exclusivity but First Amendment protection as won in our lawsuits is the strongest, fairest, most lasting and most democratic system we could possibly have. Right now artists can sell on any street in the City without a license or permit if we don't use a stand or display, and on almost any street if we do use a display. There is no limit on the number of artists, no qualifications for who is or is not an artist, no one we need to get permission from and no way to be permanently excluded from access to the street even if we violate a vending law - whether we do it once or a thousand times.

Once we accept any other classification - based not on free speech but on being so-called professional or qualified artists or being part of an elitist official Downtown arts scene - we will have less, not more, protection. If we allow - let alone foolishly request - a special area set aside for artists that means less rights in all other spaces. It also means no real free speech rights in that special area.

In the United States there is no public forum exclusively reserved just for artists or for some other group of First Amendment protected speakers any more than there are streets where only White Americans can park their cars or go shopping. A public forum means everyone shares access. Once not everyone shares access it is no longer a public forum and there is no longer real or full First Amendment protection. Eliminate the competition for public space and you have eliminated free speech.

While creating a special area just for artists sounds like a very attractive idea to those who want a reserved spot or less competition, it absolutely guarantees the creation of a permit requirement - otherwise how could the City determine which of the City's hundreds of thousands of artists could set up in that very limited special area? In other words, creating or reserving a special area just for street artists means taking away their currently existing rights.

A permit means you need permission. Needing permission means that you do not have a right to be there. For example, you don't need permission from the SoHo Alliance or Alan Gerson to walk down Prince Street - at least not yet. Permission can be revoked if you do anything wrong - or for no reason at all. The Parks Department artist-permit we defeated last year stated in the application form that you would lose the permit and any future right to the permit if you violated their rules. All you'd have to do is get three summonses for being less than 20 feet from a door or over 8 feet and that would be it for you under such a system.

This is the City's latest strategy for defeating us, to offer artists what they mistakenly think they want, as a means of taking away from them what they don't realize that they already have.

Councilmember
Alan Gerson's
Duplicity On Intro # 160

SoHo's City Councilmember, Alan Gerson, has had Intro # 160 on his desk for more than 4 months now. Until I emailed it to him in June and gave a copy to his artist-stooge on West Broadway, Gerson was not even acknowledging that it existed.

Intro # 160 requires all street artists and book vendors to compete in a lottery for a limited number of permits. It also means creating a permit for any speech activity in a public space. This would be necessary in order to avoid an equal protection legal challenge from street artists.

Gerson's district - which has City Hall (the Mayor's office) in it's center - has more street artists and more book, jewelry and craft vendors than almost all the other City Council districts combined. In other words, Intro # 160 was written by Bloomberg's staff with Gerson's district and the Met Museum - across from which Bloomberg lives - as its initial focus.

Hundreds of people have now written, faxed, emailed and phoned Alan Gerson and demanded his exact position on this bill yet Councilmember Gerson refuses to release any official statement on Intro # 160.

In a recent phone conversation Gerson hemmed and hawed when asked for his position, then refused to give one, then said he is still considering it and then said he'd have to discuss it with merchants first - in other words with store owners and real estate interests who apparently must tell him what his own ideas on free speech are. In a meeting with vendors Gerson said he could not issue a public statement on Intro # 160 because he would then be shut out of the legislative process and had not yet researched it enough. Did you ever hear of an elected official who could not tell you his or her position on a simple one paragraph long piece of legislation after having it for four months? [Note: expect Alan Gerson to begin faxing out a statement attempting to explain his position on Intro # 160 within hours of reading this article]

There's no mystery to the Councilmembers problem in making up his mind. Intro #160 is the lynchpin in the scheme to get rid of street artists and the people who are most against street artists are Alan Gerson's constituents and his supporters in real estate.

Gerson needs to stay on Bloomberg's good side to get his own various real estate initiatives passed. As the City Council representative for ground zero and the financial district Councilmember Gerson is situated in the center of the controversy and corruption regarding the rebuilding of Downtown and the WTC site. Whose interests do you think he's going to protect, those of struggling street artists and vendors or those of billionaire real estate interests and the world's leading corporations?

Without the permit requirement Intro # 160 creates, Bloomberg's Street Furniture Initiative is not going anywhere. Downtown, with it's tremendous need for rebuilding, is the logical place to start installing street furniture with ads. But, you can't sell a corporation the right to advertise on a sidewalk for half a million dollars a year per sign when artists can set up in the same exact spot for free. Gerson's dilemma is that a lot of Downtown types were suckered into voting for him on a false premise: that he supported full First Amendment rights, real due process and complete artistic freedom in public spaces. If sending cops to crush art displays in April wasn't enough to convince you otherwise, Gerson's four month-long inability to issue a a one sentence press release unambiguously stating he is against Intro # 160 should.

Please don't misunderstand what I'm stating here. Alan Gerson IS without ANY question a big supporter of the arts.

What that means in SoHo-speak is that Gerson supports the arts establishment that moved to 22nd Street between 10th and 11th Avenue in Chelsea and set up jagged stone pillars in every spot that was 20 feet from a door to keep street artists out. He supports the SoHo Alliance and the anti-street artist fanatic, Sean Sweeney, who has been appointed chairman of the Public Aesthetics Committee of CB2, which includes all of SoHo.

Gerson supports tax write-offs for landlords that rent to artists and galleries. He wants to create art zones where real estate investors would get special benefits and the right to violate zoning laws if they display some vapid corporate art in their building lobby. He wants to give tax dollars and other perks to corporations like Chase Bank and Phillip Morris that use art as a smokescreen for their crimes by installing an abstract sculpture on a public sidewalk or in a park. He wants artists who gave up their freedom to criticize elected officials in exchange for government grants, to get more welfare and subsidized housing. The tax money such artists get for rent ends up in the bank accounts of the real estate interests that got Gerson elected. Gentrification specialists like Gerson sees artists as useful pawns of corporate interests and as a smokescreen for rewriting zoning laws to favor landlords.

Landlords with a connection to the arts absolutely love Alan Gerson. The $oHo Alliance is the artist, landlord and gallery group which led the attack on street artists and which gentrified SoHo. Their greed eventually forced out all the galleries by making the rents outrageously high. Alan Gerson is these art elitists hand-picked successor to Kathryn Freed.

How Alan Gerson Shows
His Love For Street Artists

Some people have a funny way of expressing their love. The infamous police action on April 6, 2002 in which 20 art displays were seized and crushed in a garbage truck was planned in Councilmember Alan Gerson's office by Gerson and Sean Sweeney, as the newspaper excerpts below illustrate. A few days later Gerson confirmed to me by phone that the action was suggested to him by Sweeney. The news quotes showing Gerson's direct involvement, also illustrate how supporters of Alan Gerson such as Larry White hold elitist ideas on art that are identical to those of Sean Sweeney, Gerson Freed and Giuliani. From 1993-1997 these enemies of our movement, many of whom are themselves artists of one kind or another, were making the exact same blanket claims about visual art not being protected by the First Amendment that they are now foolishly making about all jewelry and crafts. They were as wrong then as they are now.

Excepted from The Villager article:

Police descend on Soho

By: Sascha Brodsky
April 10, 2002

Several Soho art street vendors claim police last weekend illegally confiscated and destroyed the tables used to display their wares. "It was just horrible," said artist Renee Berger. "They just took my table and threw it into a garbage truck." The apparent crackdown came amid rising tensions between residents who fear street peddlers are turning Soho into a tawdry commercial district and art vendors who say their First Amendment rights are being trampled on...The artists said First Police Precinct officers arrived Saturday around 8:30 a.m. as they were setting up their displays as usual near Prince St. and W. Broadway. Unattended displays were thrown into a waiting Sanitation truck. The incident came a day after Councilmember Alan Gerson met with police officials and local residents who were complaining about Soho street vendors. Sean Sweeney, director of the Soho Alliance, who attended the meeting, recalled that police said they would remove any unattended street vendor displays.

Soho jewelry vendors claim art protections;
Artists seek damages for lost stands

By: Sascha Brodsky;
The Villager
July 04, 2002

Councilmember Alan Gerson said he agreed with court decisions saying that art can't include "non-expressive" works, including jewelry...Gerson said that he is in talks with the Department of Consumer Affairs about finding an area that vendors can use as a kind of flea market. "The problem in Soho is we have lost control of the sidewalks to commercial activity which inhibits safe and reasonable pedestrian access," Gerson added. Surprisingly, artist Lawrence White, who has been a vocal defender of art vendors, agreed with Gerson that the First Amendment should not cover jewelry vendors. "A lot of the jewelry you see on the streets is not created by the individuals themselves," White said, adding that the vendors should be allowed vending licenses as craftsmen. Among the defenders of the jewelry vendors is Robert Lederman, who's fought the city in court over art vending rules and landed in jail 41 times. "Jewelry predates all other kind of art," Lederman said. Long before there were paintings, photographs or prints, people were making jewelry. Jewelry from the earliest days to the present was meant to convey ideas. Federal court cases have said that the essence of why we are protected under the First Amendment is not the medium we are using, it's because we present ideas."...Sean Sweeney, director of the community group Soho Alliance and a longtime foe of street vendors, dismissed such distinctions. "What's next?" Sweeney asked rhetorically. "If I build a stereo does that mean I can call myself an artist?"...In April, police threw about 20 unattended displays of art vendors on W. Broadway into a Department of Sanitation garbage truck.

Excerpted from: www.thevillager.com
April 17, 2002

Police say unmanned tables
are technically 'trash'

The operation, the first in which First Precinct police confiscated tables, came after a local councilmember and residents urged police to enforce vending regulations...One indication of the continuing tensions came last Saturday when many vendors on W. Broadway displayed signs saying "Stop Harassing Artists" in reference to the seizures...The crackdown came a day after Councilmember Alan Gerson met with police officials and local residents who were complaining about Soho street vendors. Gerson said he was among those at the meeting who suggested that police enforce vending regulations by removing unattended displays.

LARRY WHITE

Gerson's alter ego on West Broadway, Larry White, urged artists and vendors NOT to display signs, NOT to engage in street protests against the display crushing incident and to work WITH Alan Gerson after this attack - an attack on artists and vendors which Gerson himself organized. Larry White then told a few gullible street artists and the local media that he had personally stopped any further attacks from taking place and that Gerson knew nothing about the incident beforehand and was shocked about it - despite Gerson himself ineptly admitting in interviews that he had planned it.

This is as classic an example of good cop, bad cop as you could ever hope to find with Alan Gerson, Larry White and Sean Sweeney acting as a Downtown version of the Three Stooges. They sometimes appear to fight and argue, but in the end they are all on the same exact side playing a con game on artists, local residents and the police. The display crushing, like the recent crackdown on jewelry and craft vendors in SoHo, was intended to force vendors and artists to go to Gerson for help - and it succeeded. Councilmember Freed tried the exact same good cop, bad cop harassment techniques in 1993-94 but failed.

I hope you will very carefully read the soon-to-be-released proposal Gerson' s stooge has been writing for what he calls 'public art' in SoHo. We've discussed it repeatedly over the past few months as I and other artists pressured him to reveal Gerson's master plan to supposedly help street artists. In my opinion, it is a blueprint for destroying the freedom we now have and for turning SoHo into a police state. Interspersed between calls for a police crackdown and creating an exclusive system for street artists which directly violates freedom of speech every page will have flowery nonsense about supporting the arts, embracing the First Amendment and upholding the street artist Federal court rulings in our lawsuits - all of which were brought by members of A.R.T.I.S.T.

If Larry White and Gerson get their way there will be a cop investigating every art display in SoHo, a street artist/police informer on every block and vending spot access will be limited to what he describes as professional or qualified artists - in other words to artists that were approved by a panel of SoHo art elitists who hold ideas just like Larry White.

The only way to do that is by a permit, so don't believe for a second that a permit is not part of this plan, whatever they tell you to the contrary. Intro # 160 is what creates the permit and that is why Gerson cannot publicly attack it.

Remember bait and switch. The switch does not take place until after you've taken the bait.

Is Larry White primarily an artist or a police informer? White proudly claims he brought the FBI to SoHo to investigate alleged copyright infringement by street artists. He constantly reports to the police on vending activities, literally begging them for more enforcement while wildly exaggerating the actual problems. Yet, his own display is itself blatantly illegal, being much less than 20 feet from a door. He even proudly calls the police on other street artists. In fact, he is the treasurer for the monthly meetings between the police and the people who want all vendors and artists eliminated that takes place in SoHo each month. If the civil liberties violator par excellence, John Ashcroft, ever gets around to extending Homeland Security to the arts, Larry White would be the perfect candidate to head up the SoHo Arts Gestapo.

As the City maximizes it's effort to eliminate street artists, expect to see Larry White begin furiously attacking me, the group A.R.T.I.S.T. and our positions concerning vendor and artist rights in public, instead of in private, as he has been doing for months. According to a leaflet he recently handed out, street artists no longer need a group or a leader or protests and should individually negotiate or as he calls it - mediate - with the authorities.

Like the infamously useless City Council hearings in which they give you three whole minutes to vent your feelings to a row of empty Council chairs before passing a new law violating your rights, Alan Gerson is willing to let you tell him whatever you like, not that it will have the slightest influence on what he decides. This is like giving the condemned prisoner a chance to make a final statement before being executed.

Gerson has set up his stooge to pretend to represent street artists on various fake panels so that he and the stooge can then work out the destiny of street artists in NYC. At times they may even pretend to disagree or argue, the way detectives playing good cop, bad cop do when they try to force a confession out of a prisoner. According to Larry White, this arrangement, where Gerson's stooge represents us in negotiations with Gerson, is called Democracy. A skeptical observer might think it was more like Fascism.

This being a free country and A.R.T.I.S.T. being a group which no one is compelled to participate in, all street artists remain free to work with whoever they prefer. Working with Gerson is the ideal way to lose your rights and weaken the success of the A.R.T.I.S.T. movement - a group that even Larry White publicly acknowledges won him and every other street artist in NYC their rights on the street. If Larry White had ever participated in this movement as he was routinely invited to do, he'd know a lot more about it, such as that I was elected president and spokesman for the group three times.

He and a fake vendor-advocate lawyer he is working closely with are attacking me and A.R.T.I.S.T. on behalf of Gerson, elements of the SoHo Alliance and City officials - all of whom know the A.R.T.I.S.T. group will never volunteer to give up the full First Amendment freedom we spent nine years fighting for.

In an ironic sense, these turncoats and traitors exactly agree with me that A.R.T.I.S.T. is standing in the way of Gerson's plans for destroying the full First Amendment rights of street artists. That is why they are so opposed to our group.

Alan Gerson's Dream:
A Community Court For
Persecuting Vendors And Artists

Alan Gerson has spent many years promoting the creation of a Community Court in SoHo where artists and vendors would be tried vigilante style without the usual protections of due process. When I first brought this to the attention of Larry White he claimed it was all a lie, that Gerson was not now and never had promoted a Community Court.

Yet, Gerson's own campaign website still proudly describes the creation of a Community Court as his number one priority for "improving quality of life" [go there before they delete this page and see for yourself
Click Here].

In Gerson's district, vendors and street artists are considered the #1 quality of life problem. Gerson claims he wants to go even further than the racist 54th Street Community Court financed and run by the BIDs and allow local residents to swear out complaints about vendors and other so-called quality of life criminals so that the police can arrest them. My earliest exposure to Alan Gerson was in the mid 1990's in connection to his efforts at promoting this court. Whenever I saw Alan Gerson he was usually with Sean Sweeney and Kathryn Freed. One can only imagine what Sean Sweeney, Larry White or the SoHo Alliance vigilantes who elected Gerson would do if they had a Community Court to use as a weapon against the local street artists and vendors.

Found Here

An excerpt from the
Alan Gerson website position papers:

QUALITY OF LIFE-IMPROVING THE QUALITY OF LIFE DOWNTOWN While in a sense, every issue in Alans campaign for City Council involves improving the quality of all of our lives in some way, the issues that are specific to improving the quality of life include: 1. Making Downtown Safer and Quieter through the establishment of a Community Court." CRIME REDUCTION MAKING DOWNTOWN SAFER AND QUIETER THROUGH THE ESTABLISHMENT OF COMMUNITY JUSTICE PROGRAMS AND A COMMUNITY COURT Alan believes that a community's problems should be resolved at the community level whenever possible. While crime has gone down significantly in our city, neighborhoods in our district still suffer from chronic offenses that diminish the quality of life for people who live downtown. And for a variety of reasons, our legal system has not effectively tackled these problems. Alan supports the creation of an intensive and community-focused collaboration among the police, prosecutor and the courts to tackle quality-of-life crime downtown. This collaboration could be done with existing agencies, but is ideally coordinated under the umbrella of a Community Court...Building on the model of the Midtown Community Court, which played a crucial role in the dramatic drop in crime in the Hells Kitchen and Times Square neighborhoods, Alan will champion a program that: Promotes accountability for all offenders on every case Requires people who commit crimes in our neighborhoods to pay back the community through community service where the offense occurred.

For more information on
Gerson and Community courts
see these sites:

• Here
• Here
• Here
• Here

Perhaps this is what Gerson actually means by Mediation...sending us to his Community Court where we stand trial before Judge Sweeney or Judge White.

Business Improvement Districts-
-another Fake Friend Of Street Artists

It was the BIDs - including two landlord groups in his district which Gerson is closely working with, The Alliance for Downtown NY (founded by David Rockefeller) and the SoHo Alliance (founded by Kathryn Freed) - that filed an infamous legal brief in the first street artist lawsuit, claiming we were unworthy of First Amendment protection. Who brought the BIDs together to file papers in Federal Court against street artists? Gersons top advisors on the vending issue, Sean Sweeney and Kathryn Freed. Here's a quote from their brief. It was described in the March 1996 issue of Art in America and in various newspapers. You can get the brief from the Federal Court at Pearl Street or by calling Sean Sweeney's # (212) 353-8466 as printed on his green anti-vendor leaflet. Excerpt from the 30 page brief signed by The Alliance For Downtown NY, Madison Ave. BID, Fifth Avenue Association BID, Grand Central Partnership and the SoHo Alliance: "The sale of artwork does not involve communication of thoughts or ideas...An artists' freedom of expression is not compromised by regulating his ability to merchandise his artwork...the sale of paintings and other artwork does not reach this high level of expression (guaranteeing First Amendment protection)..."

When they filed this absurd legal brief the territory of these same real estate groups contained virtually every art museum and gallery in NYC, all of which would have lost their own First Amendment protection if the court had sided with the BIDs and the SoHo art bigots against the street artist-plaintiffs. These enemies of street artists will stop at nothing - including destroying their own First Amendment rights - to get rid of us.

If you are a craft or jewelry vendor you may have heard that Gerson wants to get you a permit and a special place to sell. He does. Once there's a permit and even one place for a handful of craft and jewelry vendors to sell, guess what? You will never win a lawsuit granting you First Amendment protection because the City will show the court that they have already set up an alternative venue. It's classic bait and switch. The existence of an alternative venue is a key legal issue in any First Amendment case.

In 1993-1994 Gerson's predecessor and patron, City Councilmember Kathryn Freed, tried very hard to get me to accept a permit system for artists and a limited area where we could sell. News articles from the time state her position clearly. Like Gerson, Freed is a lawyer representing landlords tied to the mainstream arts community. During this stressful time, when street artists were subject to daily attack thanks to Freed pressuring the police to arrest us, many artists wanted to settle for a permit and dreamed of a special place just for artists where they imagined we would be protected. Once again, good cop, bad cop followed by bait and switch.

If I had agreed to Freeds plan then, no street artist in NYC would have the full protection of the First Amendment now.

Gerson and his anti-vendor pals are still trying to rewrite this history. So far, they have lost in every court and in the forum of public opinion. In order to win now they first need to subvert the group A.R.T.I.S.T. - which is exactly what they are currently attempting.

Craftspeople, jewelers and street artists will soon begin to feel intense pressure from these enemies to sell out other artists and vendors in exchange for getting themselves a reserved vending spot in a lot, around the public market that may be put up around the WTC site or elsewhere. Once any special area gets popular as a result of vendors and artists, be assured most will be thrown out by having their permits revoked or priced out of reach and they will be replaced with corporate vendors.

Freedom Or Servitude?

As far as the Gerson-ists using display crushing, fake vendor-advocate lawyers, police harassment and arrests to good cop-bad cop artists, craftspeople and jewelers into giving up their rights, let Benjamin Franklin and two other famous American experts on freedom weigh in on the issue:

• "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
  Benjamin Franklin, 1759 Historical Review of Pennsylvania
• "If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen."
  Samuel Adams in a speech at the Philadelphia State House, August 1, 1776.
• "Few men have virtue to withstand the highest bidder."
  George Washington

Don't sell out.
Don't be tricked.
Don't be fooled.

Understand your own long-term interests. Everyone, including every single vendor whether they sell art, food, jewelry or crafts has a right to protest against being mistreated by City officials. Use your First Amendment rights to fight for your rights as a vendor by displaying signs on your stand, giving out literature and making your specific problems with the City as public as possible. Anyone who advises you not to protest is working for the enemy not for you.

As for artists, free speech is not only about making a buck by selling art. If artists take the time to understand what the political reality we are dealing with actually is they will see this issue - and their own place in it - in a new light. By defending your own full First Amendment rights on public property you are defending every single person in this societies rights at the same time.

Soon enough you will see why I and many other activists who care about more than just their own vending spot strongly oppose these fake vendor and fake street artist advocates who are trying to pull the wool over your eyes.

Once you understand the political reality behind your art display you will understand why supporting the group A.R.T.I.S.T. is essential if you hope to still be able to sell art on the street a year from now. There is nobody out there dedicated to helping you keep your full First Amendment rights except the members of this group.

Together we can protect real First Amendment rights and preserve them for future generations of artists to come. If you turn your destiny over to the elitist enemies of street artists and vendors, all you will accomplish is losing both your own rights and those of artists and vendors as yet unborn.

[Note: This newsletter was emailed to
Alan Gerson,
Larry White and their supporters.
I welcome their comments.]

To a Directory of Mr.Lederman's Essays

Robert Lederman is an artist, writer and activist and is also the President of the street artist advocacy group, A.R.T.I.S.T.
Click here for an archive of A.R.T.I.S.T. related news articles on the Freedom Forum website

His essays and Op-Eds have appeared in hundreds of alternative publications as well as the Daily News, Penthouse, Africa Sun Times, Street News and The Shadow.
Lederman was falsely arrested 41 times for his anti-Giuliani activities and was never convicted of any of the charges. As a result of the arrests, he's won four Federal lawsuits and overturned three laws.
He is best known for having created hundreds of paintings of Mayor Giuliani as a Hitler like dictator which were carried in demonstrations throughout the eight years of the Giuliani administration. Images of his paintings and articles about his arrests and lawsuits have appeared on all of the major television networks hundreds of times as well as frequently appearing in the NY Times, Daily News, NY Post, Newsday, Newsweek, People, The Washington Post, LA Times and NY Magazine.

Robert Lederman,
President of A.R.T.I.S.T.
(Artists' Response To Illegal State Tactics)
robert.lederman@worldnet.att.net

For a detailed exposition on the West Nile issue
http://www.nospray.org/
For an article on the Manhattan Institute go to
http://www.konformist.com/2000/rudyg.htm

If you would like to help oppose the spraying,
please write to the
No Spray Coalition
PO Box 334
Peck Slip Station
NYC, NY 10272-0334
or call the No Spray hotline at (718) 670-7110.

Any funds you can send to help continue the lawsuit
and this work are greatly appreciated.

Important Note:
Mr. Lederman has explained that his articles posted here are not to be taken as official statements by the No-Spray Coalition of which he is a member or of the "No-Spray" lawsuit in which he is a plaintiff.

Blue Collar Pundit Essays

Searching for the Breach in
Alice’s Looking Glass World

My America

Oh Say, Can You See?

FREEDOM!

War isn't Hell!

God is Starting to Scare Me!

It's All Part of the Plan!

Turning the World Wide Web Into
a Tower of Politically Sanitized Babel

And by clicking here, you'll see an old suggestion (May 2003) of how Democrats could/should have protested the Republican convention and G.W. Bush.

This site is under construction

Contact: Jack Ballinger at: Pundit@BlueCollarPolitics.com

Click Here to Join the Discussions
in the
Blue Collar Blog!

For a great source of general tenant information,
visit the Tenant Net Home Page |

Click here to view City Limits Magazine

©2005 Baltech Productions. All rights reserved.