It has been ages since I received any hate mail, which means I’m not doing anything useful. With that in mind, I’m going to answer comments in a Facebook thread discussing busking permits.

• I have used Bold for their questions/comments

• Normal writing for what is true (please let’s not get into a debate about objective reality, just be happy to know that I’m wrong if you disagree with this statement)

• And italics for my opinion and thoughts

Feel socially obliged to disagree with me as often as possible — if I don’t work out where people disagree with me, I’m not going to know when I’m wrong. I’ve numbered the points below, to make it easier for you to disagree with me. Please start your comments with the number you’re replying to. If you dislike everything I’ve said, try something like: “1-15 you’re a douche”

—

1. “Municipalities’ motives for such permitting can vary”
— Safety
— Noise complaints
— Particular bad buskers
— Belief that buskers make an area look bad
— I believe that fear of litigation and an unconscious desire to have unpredictable elements controlled may come into it, but those are really passing thoughts. A misguided sense of “security” and a fear of the unknown is more likely. What have I missed?


2. Should any performer be allowed to just come into a city, perform and pull revenues out of that city?

Undeniably.

3. Laws go against our “freedoms”
.
Yes. But there are various freedoms that trump that of expression — safety is one of them. Too much noise at bad hours in residential zones is not acceptable. Chasing someone up the street and demanding cash is also not acceptable. Laws that prevent these are fine.

4. Why should we ever need permission to perform?

If you want to set up a massive stage for a free, open-air concert, then you probably should need a permit. If you want to whistle on the way to work, you probably shouldn’t. Somewhere in between the two is a line. However, it is HUGELY difficult to argue that you need a permit to put a hat on the floor.

5. The permit is less to do with conducting business than it is about permission to use a public space for a purpose other than for which it was designed.
Was Trafalgar Square designed with busking in mind? Yes — a busker was in a mock up of the design that the original architect drew up. Does this matter? No. Busking should be no more free in Trafalgar Square as it should in Piccadilly Circus, Covent Garden or Camden Town. Public space is public space. All that matters is that you are being safe, courteous and (very) mindful.

6. Licensed performers can just as easily cause a nuisance as non-licensed ones
.
True. Councils tend to believe, however, that the simple hurdle of having to apply for a permit will make you less likely to cause a nuisance, and that the ability to revoke a permit makes buskers easier to fine or move on. It MAY be easier to get rid of a nuisance busker once there’s a permit system in place.

7. If a city requires someone to get a permit to set up a hot dog cart or other conduct similar forms of street vending, why shouldn’t they be able to require that of buskers, who are, in essence, entertainment vendors?
It’s more difficult to argue with this one if you believe that busking is entertainment vending. Still, food vending licenses are for safety reasons. Trading licenses stop Verizon or Dell taking over our parks to sell their products. Busking licenses stop nomadic street performers or artists who just want to “give it a go”, and essentially “ban” anyone who refuses to live “within the system”. I’m not sure it matters, ethically, whether a busker is giving their art away for free, or charging a dollar beforehand. That seems like a legal differentiation to me, not a humanitarian one.

8. If you do something in public to obtain money, some permit is required…or should be..

Why?

9. We’re not charging for our entertainment.

Sort of true….But, if you make eye contact with someone, and tell them that you live off donations, you’re increasing the guilt they would feel by not paying. So, those who feel guilt more than others will be more likely to pay than others. This is an emotional contract, not a legal one. I think this still counts on some level as “charging” — although not in the traditional sense. I certainly feel a social obligation to pay for art I’ve enjoyed.

10. All businesses small or large have to pay their dues to the city/state — it is the nature of business.
But do you want it to be the nature of art, too?

11. A permit ensures the street acts are of quality
If this were true, you’d see fewer bad acts in cities with tough permit systems. Instead, in cities with tough permit systems you tend to be left with people on the busker/beggar divide, and few others.

12. Giving people a choice of how much they pay for your service or if they pay at all doesn’t remove the core intent of making money.
True. If that is your “core intent”. But many believe that their core intent is something way more arty, just the money enables them to do it.

13. Municipalities have the right, if not the obligation, to create bylaws governing how streets and other public areas are utilised.
They certainly have the right to create bylaws, but they have the obligation to act in the public good, to not overly restrict human lives and to not deny us our basic human rights.

14. Permits stop buskers from fighting over territory.

So I’ve been told.

15. When someone’s sole livelihood is dependent upon busking, emotion takes over, and that is when permits can come in handy.
Very interested to know what others make of this.

—

I’m not going to end this post with any conclusions. I’m definitely against mandatory permits. But I also recognise their benefits in some places, in some situations.