Permitting Art: Visual Arts and the First Amendment on the Streets of New York
Bibliographic record
Abstract
I have a Jewish friend who tells this joke (stop me if you have heard this one before): God goes to Moses and says “Do not seethe a kid in its mother’s milk.” Moses replies, “Okay, we will never cook meat and milk together.” “No,” replies God, “do not seethe a kid in its mother’s milk.” “Fine,” replies Moses, “we will have separate dishes for meat and dairy.” “No,” God reiterates, “do not seethe a kid in its mother’s milk.” “Got it,” Moses says, “we will wait a few hours after eating meat before we eat dairy.” Exasperated, God replies, “Moses, do whatever you want.” This story is relevant here because American constitutional jurisprudence looks (particularly to a non-American) like Talmudic commentary on scripture. The difference is that American jurists try to find activities permitted, rather than forbidden, by their Constitution. The result is that the right to a well-ordered militia becomes, according to Second Amendment absolutists, the right to open carry AR-15s on school grounds. Another result of constitutional fundamentalism is a lengthy debate about what constitutes free speech within the meaning of the First Amendment to the US Constitution. Courts have concluded that the guarantee of free speech entails that anyone may sell written materials on the streets and that they may not be required to have a vendor’s licence. This has led artists and jurists to argue that all art is a kind of speech or expression and that, consequently, artists may not be required to have vendors’ licences in order to sell their works on the street. This requires courts to determine what counts as art. Permitting Art presents many of the original court documents concerned with whether licences may be required to sell art on the streets of New York City, and a lively introductory essay.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.035 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.020 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.019 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".