Congratulations to Steve and his attorney Tony Bole for the prospective victory overturning the "Move Along" sections of the non-commercial display ordinance. (A final ruling is due to be issued in early April; it's still not clear what rights people have in the interim and whether police will respect them)

The ruling--a pre-trial ruling--eliminated the need for a trial for Steve, since the charge is now defective based on a law that is expected to be declared unconstitutional.

Unfortunately in the same hearing, Barton found Mu the Flute Player guilty of playing in a "forbidden zone" with an open flute case to hold donations. Ths decision strangely ignored the same unconstitutional distinction between commercial and non-commercial speech which Barton found so compelling.

But the argument is actually the same. Just as you can't constitutionally allow commercial displays to have permits and be there all day, while denying that right to non-commercial displays (for which there is no permit process). Likewise, you can't allow commercial displays to set up within 10' of a building, as they always do during permitted fairs (and sometimes without permits) unless you also have a process that opens up those areas to non-commercial displays.

The 10' forbidden zones laws are actually the first section of MC 5.43.020--the second section is the one Steve cites above.

These two laws combined destroyed the Voluntary Street Performers Guidelines, which street performers are struggling to have reinstated.

Now, thanks to Steve and Tony Bole, the second part of the law has apparently been knocked out--at least until City Council meets to patch up their blank check to the police with some kind of "permit" for non-commercial displays.

I encourage anyone who's told to either "Move Along" or not have a display device within 10' of a building to point out to the complaining officer that the current law is unconstitutional and continue to use the public space.

It is true, however, that police may ignore this decision until it becomes final, and will probably ignore its implications on the "forbidden zones" provision. I also fear that City Council may do another one of Rotkin's
"emergency ordinance" corrections, by rushing in a quick "fix-up" job during an afternoon session.

Still, this is an unexpected and encouraging decision by Barton--who I have indeed termed "Barricuda" Barton for his smooth sleek friendly patter that is followed by a verdict in favor of police.

Before I change his moniker to something more positive, I want to understand why he ruled against Mu, the flautist.

Mu was harassed by Officer Bachtel repeatedly for playing close to a closed building (once to get out of the rain, and another time to get out of the wind, by his account).

It seems strange, since he held up Mu's decision to issue it a week later in the same court session where he indicated he'd be dismissing Argue's charges.

Perhaps it was because Mu didn't have a lawyer and didn't explicitly argue that the law was unconstitutional specifically on the commercial/non-commercial grounds.

I find it disappointing that Barton didn't follow through and apply the same arguments in the case of Mu that he found so persuasive in the Argue case.

I've suggested to Mu that he try to get Tony Bole to put forward those arguments in some sort of appeal. It's a sad sign of our petrified and privileged times that you have to get an attorney in court to get a judge to listen.

Still, a final salute to Bole for his hard work on the case and Argue for not only taking two busts, but coming back to court again and again.

Now it's up to us in the community to see the police and the hosts obey the Constitution.