14.11.2014 Views

BERGER v. CITY OF SEATTLE - ACLU of Washington

BERGER v. CITY OF SEATTLE - ACLU of Washington

BERGER v. CITY OF SEATTLE - ACLU of Washington

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

<strong>BERGER</strong> v. <strong>CITY</strong> <strong>OF</strong> <strong>SEATTLE</strong><br />

251<br />

limits on spontaneous expression. Grossman, 33 F.3d at 1205<br />

n. 9 (quoting Rosen v. Port <strong>of</strong> Portland, 641 F.2d 1243, 1250<br />

(9th Cir. 1981)); see also Santa Monica Food Not Bombs, 450<br />

F.3d at 1052-53 (upholding some permitting requirements,<br />

but not others, applicable only to large groups <strong>of</strong> people).<br />

But our usual careful inquiry into how well a permit system<br />

serves its coordination purpose cannot even begin in this case.<br />

For the Seattle Center’s registration scheme serves no coordination<br />

purpose at all. Instead, it serves only one purpose: To<br />

allow the government to know who is planning to engage in<br />

communication through street performance at the Seattle Center<br />

at some indeterminate time in the future. This “purpose,”<br />

such as it is, is not a permissible governmental interest at all,<br />

much less a significant one.<br />

More specifically: The Seattle Center requires all street performers<br />

to obtain a permit from the Director <strong>of</strong> the Seattle<br />

Center, valid for one year, in order to perform. The permits<br />

have nothing to do with where or when the performance will<br />

occur. In fact, “[s]pecific performance times will not be<br />

assigned to a performer by the Center.” (Emphasis added).<br />

Instead, “[p]erformance locations are available on a first come<br />

first served basis.” “If the performer abandons the location,<br />

for any reason, the location may be utilized by another performer.<br />

Locations may not be ‘saved’ or ‘reserved.’ ” So it is<br />

the large number <strong>of</strong> well-located performance spots — a<br />

restriction which I am willing to assume is valid in this<br />

unusual context — that reduce performer conflicts over space.<br />

The permit requirement has nothing to do with the space allocation<br />

effort, but is simply a gratuitous restriction on speech. 4<br />

4 On its face, the rules apply very broadly indeed. The Seattle Center’s<br />

rules define a “street performer” as “a member <strong>of</strong> the general public who<br />

engages in any performing art or the playing <strong>of</strong> any musical instrument,<br />

singing or vocalizing, with or without musical accompaniment, and whose<br />

performance is not an <strong>of</strong>ficial part <strong>of</strong> an event sponsored by the Seattle<br />

Center or by a Seattle Center licensee.” Protest songs, playing the guitar

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!