ACLU sues Providence for violating street musician’s free speech rights


Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387
Manuel Pombo
Manuel Pombo

The Rhode Island American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) filed a lawsuit on behalf of a Providence street musician, saying that the city has infringed upon his First Amendment rights. 62-year-old Manuel Pombo has been harassed by Providence Police for playing in a public space on multiple occasions, even though he had a permit to perform.

Pombo said that he has been playing in Providence for over two decades, and it wasn’t until the past few years that he was even concerned about being arrested.

“It was rare to have a policeman tell me to stop,” he said. “Over the last few years, it’s become an every day thing, and I’m constantly worried about if I’m going to get arrested for playing music.”

Pombo has played near the Dunkin Donuts Center as well as the Providence Performing Arts Center for years, but police have continually chased him away from those areas.

20150714_101337“I have permission from the Dunkin Donuts Center director to play on their sidewalk, and after over 15 years at playing at Dunkin Donuts hockey games or concerts, I get positive feedback. Some of the fans have come by and said “You’re part of the hockey experience,” Pombo said. “Recently, at the Dunkin Donuts Center, a policeman was coming out, and he said “Get out of here with that.”

Pombo added that he has not had these troubles in other cities within the state, or in other cities outside of Rhode Island. He has even been harassed on his way home, when he is not playing his saxophone at all.

“I think it’s the individual officer, for whatever reason, doesn’t like what I’m doing,” he said of the harassment, linking it to specific policemen rather than the city’s administration.

“I’m not blanketing the entire police department. There are officers that support me, even tip me,” he said.

Pombo’s troubles don’t end at harassment, though. In July of 2013, he was arrested for playing his saxophone on a public sidewalk and charged with disorderly conduct and refusal to exhibit a peddler’s license. One of Pombo’s lawyers, Shannah Kurland, said that the charges were arbitrary.

“He was originally told he was being arrested for failure to move. One of the charges, that they put initially, was failure to show a license or badge, and then they added in disorderly conduct, which is kind of the charge that they throw out when they don’t have a real reason to arrest somebody,” she said.

The permission to perform license that Pombo has gives the police complete discretion as to who can play and who cannot play- it even says so on the sign he must have with him.

“It’s a no brainer, that that’s not allowed,” Kurland said. “To have that blanket, unbridled discretion.”

“The First Amendment protects the speech we hate, as well as the speech that’s nice,” said Pombo’s second lawyer, John Dineen. “Mr. Pombo doesn’t have to prove that the majority of people like his music or how good he is.”

“We’re hoping that the city will respond to this by immediately agreeing to stop the harassment, while the litigation is pending, rather than being ordered to do so by the court,” Kurland said.

“I think it’s notable that a big municipality like Providence would have so little regard for what are really basic exercises of First Amendment rights,” Steven Brown, the executive director of the RI ACLU said. “These are not complicated, complex First Amendment issues, they’re very fundamental, and it’s somewhat surprising and disappointing that a major municipality would show so little regard for allowing people to exercise their free speech rights in this way.”

Pombo’s lawsuit was filed by the ACLU in the U.S. District Court, and directly challenges the legality of the permission to perform license he must carry. Along with the broad discretion that the license gives the police to prevent him from playing, Pombo is also barred from soliciting money for his performances.

This is the third lawsuit that the ACLU has filed against Providence in the past several years. Two years ago, a federal judge sided with the ACLU and stated that Providence police violated the free speech rights of a Providence woman after barring her from peacefully distributing leaflets on a public sidewalk in front of a building where former Mayor David Cicilline was speaking. They sued the police department again last year for violating the free speech rights of protesters at a fundraiser for Governor Gina Raimondo.

20150714_103818

20150714_110738

Ticket fairness: Fix it or fail it


Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

ticketsOn the surface, the Ticket Fairness Act, pending in the General Assembly, looks like a consumer protection act that hurts the scalpers. In reality, it is exactly the opposite. As written, the law allows venues and ticket agents to transfer to themselves any quantity of tickets to resell at inflated prices.

As with many things in Rhode Island politics, it’s not so much what the bill says as what it doesn’t say. By comparing the RI bill—which is nearly identical to legislation pushed in other states by the dominant ticketing agent, Ticketmaster—to New York state’s law, considered the gold standard for actual consumer protections, we can see how our legislators are foisting upon us yet another thinly-veiled ripoff.

Hot scalper-on-scalper action!

“The music business is a cruel and shallow money trench, a long plastic hallway where thieves and pimps run free, and good men die like dogs. There’s also a negative side.”

~ Hunter Thompson

Dr. Gonzo only says this because it’s 100% true. This is a story where there are no “good guys”.

The genesis of this legislation is that Ticketmaster and their cronies (Live Nation and Ticket Exchange) are watching other, equally evil entities (StubHub) make giant amounts of money to which they feel entitled. It’s not that they actually want to protect the general public from getting ripped off. It’s that they want to be the ones that do it.

The amount of money in this shallow trench is stupefying, easily enough to motivate the most heinous behavior. That two gangs would fight over controlling it should surprise nobody.

A ticket to a hot concert at the Dunk can sell for 10 or 20 times the face value. If you can get your hand on 1,000 tickets for $50 and resell them for $500, that’s $450,000 in pure profit for basically doing nothing. That’s roughly half a million bucks for one night’s ripoff.

The RI bill does, in fact, make it much harder for StubHub to get their hands on large blocks of tickets. At the same time, it virtually guarantees that either the venue or the ticket agent will sell themselves large blocks of tickets to scalp at outrageous prices.

Are Johnny and Jenny Music Fan protected in any way? Absolutely not.

How a true entertainment capital handles this

In RI, we have maybe three or four venues that attract shows worth the attention of big-time scalpers. In New York City, that’s one block on Broadway. No other place in the US has more invested in a thriving entertainment sector than New York. Not Branson, MO; not Nashville; not Memphis; not even Las Vegas.

New York state has a comprehensive law to regulate ticket sales and resales that truly protects the general public. This law—Article 25—contains provisions that the RI bill lacks. By adding these provisions to the RI bill, the GA could actually do something good for the people of RI.

Specifically, Section 25.30 regulates not ticket resellers but the original sellers, called “operators” in their law and “issuers” in the RI bill. 25.30.3 states:

No operator or operator’s agent shall sell or convey tickets to any secondary  ticket  reseller  owned  or  controlled  by  the operator or operator’s agent.

24 words; problem solved. We find no such provision in the RI bill, but any legislator could introduce such an amendment.

You know what? Bunk that. It shouldn’t be any legislator; it should be Senator Josh Miller, who somehow is a co-sponsor in the senate. Your Frymaster is actually quite disappointed in the feisty Cranstonian that he could be bamboozled to such an extent.

As a savvy business professional, working specifically in the Downcity nightlife sector, one has to wonder how this multi-venue owner could not see through these shenanigans. And it’s much better for all of us if the question is “how” and not “why”.

Senator Miller, please fix this bill or withdraw your support and act to defeat it.

Addendum: E-tickets

Others on the left make an equally strong argument that the “any ticketing means” provision of the RI bill only serves to let venues and agents control resale by regular ticket buyers. This is true, but not the focus of this post. Interested readers can find the fix for this particular nastiness in NY 25.30 (c) that specifies that ticket buyers must be able to control resale of their tickets without interference by the venue or agent.