street performers the problem of street performers getting into territorial disputes over the best spots on campus those disputes took many forms sometimes it was i was here first you have to go somewhere permit requirement is really different than most per requirements are normally a permit requirement is for if you're in vienna gauge once in a particular activity you have to come in to get a permit you're going to have a parade or something this is a different kind of situation entirely it's a permit that's good for the entire year and then you can come in any time you want without any prior notice it has to do with the territory of his well the permit is part of the overall system in the sense that before there were any any permit requirement there was no way to effectively enforce what rules there were about for example the territorial disputes because they would come and ask people to move but they then might not move in there was no way to enforce that so the permit system is a way of enforcing all the other rules for example if someone violates a rule and refuses to conform to the rules then they may be that applies to individuals in public areas example and this happens sometimes there'd be a dispute between two performers and somebody would go to get a security officer they'd come back and performers go on there be maybe a complaint from a cit are much stronger because people are going to change to citizens houses had the supreme court has been absolutely rigid about the notion that asking people to give permission before they can speak is such a  the judgment of the seattle center that in order to be able to have any way to effectively enforce any of the other rules that will suit for a minute if you'll indulge me that those are the rules are permissible and the only way to have an effective enforcement would be to have some kind of a permit system it's a nominal requirement five dollars a year in title g to perform as many times as you want any day you want if somebody gets up in the morning must perform the cantonment well they can come in and if they haven't ever permit if you have more than a certain number of people gather like fifteen or twenty or thirty whatever but how does that work in practice you know that somebody sets up and performs and then when they start to gather the crowd at that point then they have to go get a permit that doesn't make sense so that's why i decided to have the system where i think is a fairly minimal burden on the speech in the sense that you have to do is come in and if you think you're going to want to perform at any time in seattle locations you don't have to do anything but let's assume that good reformer a comes in and asked for a permit and received it and then three days later accused of the doing something that the city doesn't like being contrary to the terms of the permit what happens when well that if it's basically on a complaint basis so if someone comes in and makes a complaint about a performer then there's a little process that occurs they receive well the difference is that trying to run it through the narrow tailoring analysis we have a separate interest here if we have a problem with performers getting into arguments this is a this is a unique activities performed first of all most of  competition over those locations which led to the problems of the dispute so i think if you look if you look at the interest which i think are legitimate interest how do we need to avoid these disputes we have a problem three or four times a week with disputes on performers over sized how do we avoid that problem and how much that's problem get resolved simply by requiring everybody that wants to use one of these sixteen spots to have a permit and then there's case law that knowledge is the interest of genom an interest of protecting the catalyzing interests here and there's no it's not a privacy interest it's an interest in being able to get the goods and services you want and not have to choose between line but then a line catch longer i have to move well the idea is that you're not supposed to be able to involuntarily subject people in the line ok so isn't this like shank and  audience provision well it's speech activities that are defined as political speech and commercial speech i i'm not i'm not sure that we thought about that issue but i don't think that  that speech by itself necessarily in this context is referring to just holding a sign me frank you know i think we're talking about speaking to an audience that doesn't want to hear the message  warning your honour's my name is alan and gorilla i represent michael berger just on that very last issue if you note on evidence record forty seven speech activities including political speech and commercial speech on section twelve of the same page political means verbal and or written communication intended to convey a noncommercial political religious or philosophical message and it includes distributing literature of seeking the titian signatures picketing demonstrating or carrying signs so he's right to think that so in other words i think you're correct your honor that if you read the rules certainly the rules are prohibiting political speech within thirty feet of the so called captive audiences in this quintessentially traditional form that we have at the seattle center and i don't want to gloss over that because our starting point over analysis relates to a point that the city has to ceded which is that the seattle center is traditional public forum it is a downtown public at the park and need up to ninety nine people may gather there without any sort of permit or advance permission but aren't we focused on the permalink system for seattle center which as i understand only to street performers the captive audience rule relates to everyone ok but does he have standing to challenge that since all he's he's he's not giving political speeches he's doing performance art but well i mean obviously it's very difficult the continuum between art to political speech is very difficult one to distinguish and the case is whole that you could be reciting poetry such as jabberwacky and that is entitled to first amendment protection it's very difficult to draw that line saying that the record is it's uncontested in the record that is part of his performance magic mike specifically addresses children for the most part he's talking about the importance of education and importance of reading and he has other messages of substantial content but i don't think that the officer whoever's seeking to regulate the performer would have to go up and listen to what the person is saying and make a determination as to whether this is political or not could the city  the ordinance which would more specifically do you with constricted areas where there is a narrow passage and there tends to be a crowd that does not move fast but simply is kind of stuck in a position where assuming they don't want to hear the message they are forced to hear the message get out of the city deal park or get to where they're want to go and in fact the city has promulgated to address that there are rules already in the seattle in a civil code and in the central rules stating for example that no one can  your example is with respect to the congestion how would the city deal with the problem of a constricted area where there are people who are not moving along  e there they're forced to either wait in line or somehow get stuck in an area where they can't move easily and but they don't want to hear a  elect to attend an event that takes place in a public park in other words you're saying they have to live there is a long line for a very popular event at seattle center and people line up many hours in advance i believe that if you go to an event or go to a public park and somebody wishes to address you and that address does not amount to the point of being arrested for harassing or otherwise and that's the only reason you're there you're food if you're walking through the park you could stand there and listen or you could leave but here you can't leave because you are here for a different purpose of the city can't deal with that they're not allowed to under the constitution i do not believe that the city can and act in a sweeping statement that says you can't get within thirty feet of people certainly there have been cases such as sha once as i recall it was limited to unwelcome speech and they have also been i can't remember this but i think that there's nothing issue about the moving target as opposed to the  i'm saying that the city has dealt with it by saying for example that they can and will deal with it by not allowing such things as aggressive pan handling or personal harassment but yes if you're standing in a public park and someone is coming along and wants to address you know we're not talking about standing in a public park that's the clear example and i have no trouble with trying to sort out your the line should be drawn with respect to someone who is not there traditionally public form for some other purpose for us in getting to work or going to a basketball game or attending a rock concert or getting into the aquarium whatever it is that almost and this city is difficult to address because what happens in the seattle center is if it got out of the eighty seven acres there are twenty seven open acres and crowds in unpredictable ways i mean there are some certainly some areas where you can predict that a particular performance spot that has been designated will almost always be a good spot to get there's certainly some spots that my client advises me nobody ever wants to stand on because they're fifty feet yonder and people aren't to wander over to it's fresh without any cation they're not going to wonder over to see what your doing and then there are the medium spots where sometimes things work out because there are crowds there the objection to the crowd have they can gather wherever they watch and yet the performer should travel to so what happens this year performer unless you're doing something that's quite spectacular like spinning fire or something it's very difficult to attract people even fifteen feet over to a spot so we're not alleging that the spots were chosen lucius lee or you know with the hope of deterring street performers but the fact is is that street performers by their very nature seek to approach a crowd or go near a crowd and i turn understand the answer to my question which is if we assume for the moment and that's why i'm trying to have the two p do not know what would happen under these rules if for example a line extended to the point of getting within the thirty feet i would imagine just reading the rules on their face there's someone i suppose a police officer could ask a street performer first come first serve component of this program that is infringing upon your mind right well i understand that the problem with the territorial  is this is kind of a traditional dispute that's happened in other settings on the sidewalks for example panhandlers will often have a little bit of elbowing of each other to get a preferred location but if you're trying to convey a message it does seem to me wrong that in a traditional public forum you are not entitled to convey your message because somebody else is there conveying the message i think that that's unethical to people can't be in one spot of course and that's why we have rules against fighting and so forth if somebody or kidnapping or or personal restraint i mean if someone is already there than you can stand in that can you stand here by i suppose you can't until you get to the point of committing some sort of public disturbance and coming under the disorderly conduct statute you are least sixteen sparks flew location that they can be occupied only by one person at a time and then some of the spots are allowed there's a number within the circle that states how many performers might be allowed to be in that area but i believe that the performers have to stay very near these particular spots or they're wandering off the map and then they're subject to  the court said where you have locations where individuals can't really avoid you there is a concern on the part of the government with respect to being targeted for some kind of demonstration i thought this was precisely what i was gauging you in about ten minutes ago and there you seem to be shifting your position i just i do not see eye i do not actually see the concern there is some concern i suppose ok i'll concede that there can be some concern here but on the other hand what we have are people who are waiting in lines lines which moving in have that ability go away i don't i don't the certainly at some point where a person is able to actually communicate the message but not interfere with a person's personal space get right into their face at some point between those an appropriate distance would be to allow someone to communicate their message with this with a speaking voice but also at the same time if there is if the city can to show a substantial concern with respect to people actually how to cases in the nevada case right and the point that was made there there they were they were closed off an area of the public streets and prohibited people putting out tables to speeches and so forth and concern in that case which i thought was appropriate for this case was the question of at what point do the courts step in and stop the city from the slow trench towards the privatizing of public areas now so we'll have a look at that here's your well that's the that's the situation that wasn't anticipated and drafting the rule i think the rule was intended to covers people who are trying to perform together an audience which the product of the situation we had was people