It is not illegal for the police to photograph citizens engaged in peaceful activity. Heck we all watch enough TV to have an idea of surveillance photography that is a very handy tool when it comes to catching lawbreakers or more salaciously, (by private investigators) wandering spouses. We have cameras placed atop St. Augustine's tallest building, Wachovia. We have cameras placed above a number of intersections in town. Facial recognition software is next.None of us should have a reasonable expectation of privacy when we are in public. The police may exploit that rule, but it is legal. Most of us do not photograph strangers without their permission.
At the City approved and sponsored Junkanoo Festival last Saturday, tourists were shocked and perplexed by seeing uniformed ,armed police officers taking multiple photographs of the artists and their displays. It is interesting to note that many felt that if a camera is aimed in their direction, it must be them that the police are recording. Four middle aged ,prosperous looking guys said,"Let's get the hell outta here!" after spotting the cop thirty feet away aiming the camera in their direction.
The city issued a dozen special event permits to food and merchandise vendors. None of these friends were photographed.
Question: Look at the pictures. Why does St. Augustine have such a high proportion of "pear shaped" police officers? Deleted: Stupid, unoriginal donut joke. Do not forward any either
See: Ron Brown, City of St. Augustine Attorney
ReplyDeletehttp://spotted.staugustine.com/photos/index.php?id=1863013
Nothing against the special use permitted people but I did wonder why the city issued the permits.
*Visual Artists return
*Citizens want them back
*City clouds the issue by special permitting items that were complained about by the citizenry
I saw St. George Street merchants checking on what was being sold.
Eye glasses, dolls, purses and jewelry to name a few.
It is not the Visual Artists fault that the city is playing games with the first amendment.
Welcome back nevertheless Visual Artists!
Anonymous (aka Maureen Ortagus) said...
ReplyDeleteSee: Ron Brown, City of St. Augustine Attorney
http://spotted.staugustine.com/photos/index.php?id=1863013
Nothing against the special use permitted people but I did wonder why the city issued the permits.
*Visual Artists return
*Citizens want them back
*City clouds the issue by special permitting items that were complained about by the citizenry
I saw St. George Street merchants checking on what was being sold.
Eye glasses, dolls, purses and jewelry to name a few.
It is not the Visual Artists fault that the city is playing games with the first amendment.
Welcome back nevertheless Visual Artists!
18 May, 2009
Is that Fred J. Harris or Robert Lichtor posting?
ReplyDeleteAnonymous aka St. George Street Merchants
It looked like a picture perfect day in the plaza with everyone smiling, laughing and enjoying it! Wonderful!
ReplyDeleteJudge Howard has the power to order SAPD to cease and desist from surveillance or giving the impression of surveillance. Consolidated Edison Company, 4 NLRB 71, 94 (1937), enforced, 305 U.S. 197 (1938); Atlas Underwear Co. v. NLRB, 116 F.2d 1020, 1023 (6th Cir. 1941); NLRB v. Ford Motor Co., 119 F.2d 326 (5th Cir. 1941); Press Co. v. NLRB, 118 F.2d 937 (D.C. Cir. 1940), cert. denied 61 S.Ct. 1118; NLRB v. Baldwin Locomotive Works, 128 F.2d 39, 49 (3d Cir. 1942); NLRB v. Jasper Chair Co.., 138 F.2d 756 (7th Cir. 1943); NLRB v. Collins & Aikman Corp., 146 F.2d 454, 455 (4th Cir. 1944).
ReplyDeleteHas SAPD and COSA given the impression of surveillance? It is well known that --
whistleblowers often face some type of surveillance from either the government, the industry, or some other private investigator. The experience can be very frightening and can add an ominous presence to the misery of blowing the whistle.... We often advise that if someone is watching you, he or she wants you to become affected by the surveillance and to act irrationally about it. It can be another way of bullying you into a mistake.
Government Accountability Project, et al. Courage Without Martyrdom -- A Survival Guide for Whistleblowers 5 (1989)(Emphasis added).
Artists can request a remedy for surveillance or giving the impression of surveillance, in order to halt future lawbreaking. See NLRB v. Anchorage Times Publishing Co., 637 F.2d 1359, 1365-6 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 835 (1981); NLRB v. Randall P. Kane Co., 581 F.2d 1124, 1131 (9th Cir. 1978); NLRB v. Squire Shops, Inc., 559 F.2d 486, 487 (9th Cir. 1977); NLRB v. Miller Redwood Co., 407 F.2d 215, 218 (9th Cir. 1978); NLRB v. Intertherm, 596 F.2d 267 (8th Cir. 1979); Russell Stover Candies, Inc. v. NLRB, 551 F.2d 204, 207 (8th Cir. 1977); NLRB v. Speed Queen, 469 F.2d 189, 191 (8th Cir. 1973); NLRB v. Hawthorn Co., 404 F.2d 1205, 1208-09 (8th Cir. 1969); Olsen Rug Co. v. NLRB, 304 F.2d 710, 714-15 (7th Cir. 1962); NLRB v. Tidelands Marine Service, 339 F.2d 291 (5th Cir. 1964); National Phosphate Corp., 211 NLRB 567 (1974); Fotomat Corp., 207 NLRB 461 (1973); J.P. Stevens & Co., 245 NLRB 198 (1979); Laidlaw Waste Systems, 305 NLRB No. 5 (1991); see also Local 309, United Furniture Workers v. Gates, 75 F.Supp. 620, 625-26 (N.D. Ind. 1948); Alliance to End Repression v. City of Chicago, 742 F.2d 1007 (7th Cir. 1984); Handschu v. Special Services Divn, 349 F.Supp. 766 (S.D.N.Y. 1972); Presbyterian Church (USA) v. United States, 870 F.2d 518 (9th Cir. 1989); Philadelphia Yearly Meeting of the Religious Society of Friends v. Tate, 519 F.2d 1335 (3d Cir. 1975); Paton v. LaPrade, 524 F.2d 862 (3d Cir. 1975); Cf. Fr. Robert F. Drinan, "First Amendment Endangered" (book review) 78 Geo L.J. 2057 (1990).
Injunctive relief against COSA and SAPD engaging in surveillance or giving the impression of surveillance should be sought. Otherwise, "[o]nly a brave soul would dare to express anything other than orthodoxy under such circumstances." White v. Davis, 120 Cal. Rptr. 94 (1975).
Also, RONALD WAYNE BROWN has made himself a fact witness, and he should be disqualified from representing SAPD and COSA.
For RONALD WAYNE BROWN to do so would violate the lawyer-witness rule. See Hull v. Celanese Corp., 513 F.2d 568, 571 (2nd Cir. 1975); Westinghouse Elec. Corp. v. Gulf Oil Corp. 588 F.2d 221, 225 (7th Cir. 1978); IBM v. Levin, 271, 283 (3d Cir. 1978); Cardinale v. Golinello, 42 N.Y.2d 288 (N.Y. App. 1977). Goss Graphics Systems, Inc. v. Man Roland Druckmaschlinen Aktiengesellschaft, 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 181000 (N.D. (N.D. Iowa 2000) (disqualifying Kirkland & Ellis); Asyst Tech. Inc. v. Empek, Inc., 962 F.Supp. 1241 (N.D. Cal. 1997)(disqualifying Wilson, Sonsini, Goodrich & Rosati); New Jersey Blue Cross/Blue Shield v. Phillip Morris, Inc., 53 F.Supp. 2d 338, 347 (E.D.N.Y 1999) (disqualifying Winston & Strawn); Islander East Rental Program v. Ferguson, 917 F.Supp. 504, 506 (S.D.Tex. 1996)(disqualifying Fulbright & Jaworski); Shadow Traffic Network v. Superior Court. 29 Cal Rptr. 2d 693 (Ct. App. 1994) (disqualifying Latham & Watkins); USFL v. NFL, 605 F. Supp. 1448, 1544 (S.D.N.Y. 1985)(disqualifying Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison). See, also Westinghouse Elec. Corp. v. Gulf Oil Corp. 588 F.2d 221, 225 (7th Cir. 1978); IBM v. Levin, 271, 283 (3d Cir. 1978); Hull v. Celanese Corp., 513 F.2d 568, 571 (2nd Cir. 1975); Cardinale v. Golinello, 42 N.Y.2d 288 (N.Y. App. 1977). See, also United States v. Mississippi Valley Generating Co., 364 U.S. 520, 548 (1961)(citing Matthew 6:24 -- "no man can serve two masters" -- holding that preventing conflicts of interest is aimed "not only at dishonor but at conduct that tempts dishonor.")
Disappointed to hear that Mr. Travous asked cops to remove non-artists from the Plaza this past weekend then demanded to see supervisors when the cops wouldn't remove said vendors.
ReplyDeleteThe order only enjoined the city from enforcing the ordinance against visual artists. It said nothing of vendors. To ban one type of commercial speech while allowing another would not be content nuetral.
Apparently Mr. Travous is for the Constitutions ONLY as it applies to him.
Mr. Travous,
ReplyDeleteEd Slavin is stealing ideas from your blog then posting it on his blog where he routinely has 0 comments on his predictably caustic and petty articles.
Thought you should know.
The judges order did not vacate ord. 22-6 prohibiting sales on public property but stated that it was not to be applied against visual artists (prints, sculpture, photographs and paintings)
ReplyDeleteYou cannot seriously believe that the constitution considers caramel corn, illegal counterfeit purses and soft drinks sales as free speech?
The community consensus is that they wanted no "flea market atmosphere, yet it seems that this is being ignored and the administrtion wants to foster it so that they can later say, "We told you so" Hence the photographers.
"Stealing ideas?"
ReplyDeleteYou mean getting inspiration.
"Anonymice" soreheads never cease to amaze with their trite tropes.
Who put the salsa in their shorts?
Who put the hate in their hearts?
Segregationist parents, perhaps?
The crudest postings are from the itty bitty silly City's mopes, who sit around all day like so many Tinpot Napoleons, scheming against the First Amendment.
"Anonymice" read my "Clean Up City of St. Augustine" blog all day without posting on it, while mocking it on KKK-style websites.
Why?
They're inarticulate and afraid of debate, as any viewer of City Commission notices. In the words of William F. Buckley, Jr., "why does baloney reject the grinder."
By the way, the itty bitty silly City government has stopped showing the Commission rebroadcast at the regular time on COMCAST, now showing it at 9 AM the following Monday). Wonder why?
For such a smart, talented group of people (bar Ed Slavin-no pun intended), you can be so incredibly myopic at times.
ReplyDeleteThis was not an ORDINARY day/weekend, there was a special permitted event allowing 'all vendors' because of Junkanoo, which made it a free for all, in terms of selling drinks/junk in the plaza.
This will not be the case, as you will see as a normal weekend/weekday returns.
The city IS allowing the 'Visual Artists' to return to the plaza, based on the ruling, and NOT allowing the junk sellers.
Again, for the reading impaired: This was NOT a normal day, but a permitted EVENT day, which opens the field, or plaza as it were, to ALL vendors.
Yes ,we were aware of the special event on Saturday. We were referencing the NEXT day, Sunday when Cpl. Simpson told us that there will be no enforcement of 22-6 against anyone.
ReplyDeleteOur jewelry vendor friend was told the day before by two footcops that they no longer need permit at anytime.
Perhaps it was a communications snafu and the "spillover effect" took place on a non workday.We will see.
We look forward to a nice set of concerts in the plaza and a special Memorial day concert with our vendor friends permitted.
What we DO disdain is that the city approved pirated, copyright violating, counterfeit,illegal designer hand bag sales as an authorized vendor.
Mistakes and misinterpretations happen.It is corrected when pointed out....or should be.
Yes. A sign offering the sale of candy corn or any other items is commercial speech.
ReplyDeleteThis is long established Supreme Court precedent.
Are you people serious? You actually think the sales of popcorn & Italian Ice are the right of free speech? I don't know whether to laugh or cry. The issue is the "vendors" were allowed by special permit, on Saturday for Junkanoo, to be able to sell. The ordinance prohibits sales of ANY KIND in HP 2 & 3. The injunction that keeps the city from enforcing the ordinance is applied ONLY to VISUAL ARTISTS. If the city chooses to not enforce the ordinance against against the "flea market vendors" (which is exactly who the citizens do not want out there), they will create chaos, which is their intention. They hope to get citizens to back them up by not having anyone out there. I beleive the citizens are smarter than that, and I KNOW the judge is smarter than that.
ReplyDeleteRemember the court cases when Greg Travous and two other defendants sold pretty little quilts and masks? Greg bitched then that it was illegal for the City to give a pass only to painters, sculptors, printers and photographers. Greg bitched that the City couldn't decide what was art and what wasn't. Greg bitched that all artists should be given a pass.
ReplyDeleteOnly Greg can decide who is selling art. Jewelry no. Masks yes. Designed purses no. Designed quilts yes.
This guy just likes to bitch.
Talk about bitching...
ReplyDelete"Again, for the reading impaired: This was NOT a normal day, but a permitted EVENT day, which opens the field, or plaza as it were, to ALL vendors."
ReplyDelete-Then it would appear there is a flaw once again, because the additional venders were not with the Junkanoo organization who obtained the special use permit.
Just because a “not for profit” pulls a permit it does not give approval for a “profit” vender under that special use permit. You have two different animals here.
Did the profit vendor pay the Junkanoo organization? For instance if there was payment made to Junkanoo there may be the problem of TDC funding and what their money was used to promote.
Junkanoo can not be a subcontractor to eyeglass exedra in the park.
What should have been in the park this week-end, and what the public anticipated, was visual artists and Junkanoo. It's simple, why does the city keep messing up?
As was written before, we were not referring to Junkanoo on Saturday, but to the next day Sunday.
ReplyDeleteIt has been the continuous habit of the city to issue separate ten dollar permits to individul vendors when another organization may have their own event and their own vendors. Festival of the Chariots and the Unity Church are two examples.
"It has been the continuous habit of the city to issue separate ten dollar permits to individul vendors when another organization may have their own event and their own vendors."
ReplyDelete-I know that, and there lies the problem. Those organizations should question the practice. The public does not think they will see china produced products for sale when attending a cultural experience.
"As was written before, we were not referring to Junkanoo on Saturday, but to the next day Sunday."
ReplyDeleteWas the permit from Saturday good for Sunday also? I’d like to see one of those permits.
In my opinion this nonsense should stop.
The special permits are issued for the four hours before the event and two hours after. The Junkanoo (which was great!) ended at 7 pm on Sat.
ReplyDeleteThe city did a bang up job having the Plaza cleaned up on Sunday morning.
The police were once again out on Sunday photographing the artists.
I agree that the practice of the City selling "special vendor permits" to anyone who wants one is wrong. I'm sure the organizations (usually not-for-profits) paying the city all of the fees necessary to have the event do not know that others will be crashing their event. Who set up these rules?
ReplyDeleteFor the city to not enforce the rules of the permits (which they shouldn't have to begin with) and let the commercial vendors be out there is derelict. How can they justify "protecting the local merchant economy" by banning the artists and then allowing these counterfit product vendors?
"Are you people serious? You actually think the sales of popcorn & Italian Ice are the right of free speech?"
ReplyDeleteYes. It is commercial speech as defined by the Supreme Court and has been treated that way in case after case since the seminal decision in 1980. It is treated the same as the sale of art.
Central Hudson Gas v. Public Service Commission, 447 U.S. 557 (1980).
Your stupidity would be a secret if you actually kept your mouth shut.
There is "protected speech" and there is "fully protected speech". Commercial speech is not "fully protected speech".
ReplyDeleteCalling our posters "stupid" serves no purpose and we ask you to refrain from anonymous name calling.
You didn't ask but ......Virginia Pharmacy Board v. Virginia Citizens Consumer Council, 425 U.S. 748, 772, 96 S.Ct. 1817, 1831, 48 L.Ed.2d 346 (1976). This Court's decisions on commercial expression have rested on the premise that such speech, although meriting some protection, is of less constitutional moment than other forms of speech. As we stated in Ohralik, the failure to distinguish between commercial and noncommercial speech "could invite dilution, simply by a leveling process, of the force of the [First] Amendment's guarantee ...
ReplyDeleteGot it with the Italian ice.
ReplyDeleteSo why does Greg think a pretty mask deserves protection, but not pretty jewelry?
And why does Greg think a designed little quilt deserves protection, but not a designed purse?
It doesn't matter what Greg thinks,,,,,,,,these decisions have been made in Federal court (as well local in this case).....those that disagree might one day want to challenge those decisions.
ReplyDeleteMore "just us" justice.
ReplyDelete"And why does Greg think a designed little quilt deserves protection, but not a designed purse?"
ReplyDeleteIt's not just Greg. The people of St. Augustine do not want a Flea Market presence in the park. If you want to fight the constitutionality of anything other than visual art, do it on your own and not on the backs of others. A judge told you what visual art is, take it up with her.
The city created exactly what they intended, another debate on what will be in the park. Don't fall into the trap.
No ......knockoff designer handbags are illegal and not protected by the constitution
ReplyDeleteSo why does Greg think a pretty mask deserves protection, but not pretty jewelry?
ReplyDeleteAnd why does Greg think a designed little quilt deserves protection, but not a designed purse?
It wasn't what Greg thought, but the artists themselves refused to have their work denegrated. They went to court to prove that it was art (sculpture & textile art- not masks & quilts). The Judge (Tinlin) agreed. The City lost. They didn't like losing and changed the ordinance so no one could sell. You seem to have a personal issue with Greg, not with the issue of art and the First Amendment.
"They went to court to prove that it was art (sculpture & textile art- not masks & quilts). The Judge (Tinlin) agreed."
ReplyDeleteUh, so isn't a quilt EXACTLY textile art? How many quilts end up in art shows as American Folk Art or other cultural heritage pieces of art?
textileartists.org
ReplyDeleteoooooooh look! quilts!
Since this is Greg's site, don't we care about what Greg thinks? He is the one who set this place up. He is the sole director and only originator of material.
ReplyDeleteUhhhhh? Yeah, this is Greg's baby. We care that he battled so long for his rights. We care that he doesn't care about anybody else's rights.
He's not getting paid money to look out for anybody else. That's what matters.
Actually, Greg is looking out for a LOT of people: city residents, quality of tourist industry in St Augustine, merchants of St Augustine, US legal system, artists in St Augustine, artists in America, artists in the world, the American Constitution and its First Amendment Rights.
ReplyDeletePolitical issues have always been the fodder of satirical and critical art. Court jesters were the ones that advised kings of the true state of their kingdoms by entertaining them with a pleasurably presented and comically exaggereted version of the opinion of the man-on-the-street masses. Many nursery rhymes were originally critical political songs of their times: "Old King Cole", "Little Jack Horner", "London Bridge is Falling Down", for example. A healthy democracy welcomes free speech as a way to air criticism and fresh ideas. Our country was founded on collaborated, often irreverent (toward England) ideas that interchanged with each other to create the lofty ideals held in the constitution that continues to inspire people the world over.
Why purses and sunglass vending is not fully protected free speech is because it is MANUFACTURED goods of utilitarian nature bought to be resold. Art as tested by previous cases in our recent Federal legal system has been defined as: sculpture, painting, photography, and prints. These do not serve a practical utilitarian function and are products of the creative mind. Although other art forms are certainly valid as art, because these forms are in the legal system, it would be helpful if we actually had a city that would protect these forms of free speech in art and did NOT allow vending of manufactured or utilitarian goods just to see what that experience was like.