ZUMA INSIDER/EXCLUSIVE TWEET: Read REAL legal analysis of Venice 42.15 CONSTITUTIONAL FLAWS (most recent ones):

1. The latest version introduces a vague,ambiguous, irrational and unconstitutional distinction between "creating visual art in its entirety" (which is permissible) and the "completion" or "partial" creation of visual art (which is not permissible). Visual art that is completed or partially created on the Boardwalk deserves as much First Amendment protection as visual art that is created entirely on the Boardwalk.

2. Likewise, visual art that is "mass produced" or "produced in limited variation" is not entitled to any less First Amendment protection than visual art that is created entirely on the Boardwalk.

3. The treatment of "Handcrafts" is vague,ambiguous, irrational and unconstitutional. Why is the artistic expression involved in "weaving, carving, stitching, sewing and beading" (which is not permissible) entitled to less First Amendment protection than painting, sculpture and other forms of artistic [removed]which are permissible)?

4. The latest version of 42.15 bans ALL "Handcrafts," yet it only finds that "most" Handcrafts have "nominal utility apart from any communicative value they posses" and that "most" Handcrafts "commonly" do not "communicate a message, idea, or concept to others." Obviously, since the City itself finds that some Handcrafts do not have "nominal utility apart from any "communicative value they posses" and that some Handcrafts do "communicate a message, idea, or concept to others," the absolute ban on ALL Handcrafts is vague,ambiguous, irrational and unconstitutional.

HERE'S LAMC 42.15 (Venice Beach Boardwalk Regulations) to read the actual legalese this argument was derived from.) http://goo.gl/yGbIU

Back to http://iRadioLIVE.com

Reply · Report Post