EXCERPTS -

Michael James Berger also known as Magic Mike VS City of Seattle

http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/uploads/enbanc/05-35752pfr.pdf

1. Whether or not laws or ordinances may be imposed that require single
individuals to apply and obtain a permit in advance, and wear a photographic
identification badge, in order to exercise free speech in the traditional public forum
of a public park.

2. Whether or not the governnment may impose a ban on the oral solicitation of donations where other oral communications are freely permitted;

3. Whether or not patron of a public park, who happen to be standing in
line or eating at a table, are considered a "captive audience" who may be isolated
from persons wishing to engage them with protected speech, particularly where the
"captive audience" may still be solicited by licensed venfors?

The plaintiff and appellee, Michael "Magic Mike" Berger 9"Berger") is a
street performer who has, for decades, entertained people in the Seattle area in
public venues. Berger's presentation is a mixture of entertainment (performing
magic tricks and creating "Balloon sculptures") and verbal communication, such as
promoting the value of reading to his audience.

Berger performs in the large public urban park know as the "Seattle
Center." The 84 acres consitituting the park were gifted to City of Seattle in the
19th century for "the use of the public forever."

In 2002, the Seattle Center promulgated a set of "Campus Rules" requiring
even solo performers (as is Berger) to register in advance as "street performers,"
wear a photo identification badge, and stand in one of sixteen pre-designated spots
in the park....The Rules permit gatherings of up to one hundred (so long as no
"performance" is involved) without prior notice, permit or license...

...judgment hold that the Seattle Center rules are facially unconstitutional.... The
opinion notes that "no matter how persuasive the lyrical urgings of Martha
Reeves and the Vandellas might be, there is no dancing in the street in the Seattle
Center, at least not without permission."

...the principle that the most protected venues for the dissemination and reception of free speech are
public parks, streets and sidewalks. As stated by the supreeme Court: "....Wherever the title of streets
and parks may rest, they have immemorially been held in trust for the use of the public, and time out
of mind, have been used for purposes of assembly, communicating thought between citizens, and discussing
public questions. Such use of the streets and public places has, from ancient times, been a part
of the privileges, immunities, right and liberties of citizens.

...A "speech registration scheme" " rather than a "speech coordination" that permits other sides to speak
or that ensures that the sidewalks remain passable. The Seattle Center rules are simply a gratuitous restriction
on speech....making government control and surveillance of the speakers easier. It is hard to think
of a more obviously unconstitutional measure in the First Amendment context."

A further aspect is to what extent the government may allow public parks to be
exclusevely or closely controlled by commercial interest. The trend towards
privatization is noted with concern....if privatization continues citizens will find it
increasingly difficult to exercise their First Amendment right to free speech.

Berger was presented as a troublemaker whose activities justified the Rules.

...the panel's underlying assumption that a performance can be neatly distinguished
from speech activities is difficult to justify.

It was noted that a group of 100 family member could meet at a park...while six people wearing
anti-war-t-shirts neede a permit.

The freedom to put forth one's opinions and concerns inthe marketplace of
ideas is one of the most significant right this country's citizens possess.

Sincerely,
Gargoyle

Some excellent previous cases are cited ... i.e. Las Vegas