It' s big todoo in boston over the right for 'entertainers,' if you will, to play their music in the subway terminals.
Local politics would have them put a cease to using amplifiers and act in accordance with several other nuances, namely when/where to play, attire, and several other as yet unpublicized guidelines. As far as I'm concerned, it's my understanding that the subway is property owned by some agency which quite possibly is funded by the tax payers. Now while I have no true objection to someone playing music, displaying art, shining shoes, or trying to make a buck/living in any public area, no guild of expressionists can claim infraction of their 1st amendment right to speech/expression if it thusly impedes on anothers right to avoid such propaganda or 'entertainment.' In fact by playing in a place which provides no escape for the audience it becomes quite intimidating, I could imagine, to some who feel that the person looming in the subway could want more than to entertain you with their music. Unfortunatley stereotypes do govern most peoples actions/reactions and the attire of said entertainer could just as much foster this trepidation within the clientel of the corporation administrating the subway. Thusly if the corporation gets no benefit from the 'performers' it behooves them to protect their patrons in a manner which may require guidelines for the 'performers' should the corporation choose to appear benevolent in allowing them to continue to solicit for money, or simply ears. The fact that I might benefit from the 'entertainment' is irrelevant if there's an equal possibility I might have a worse experience. I don't want to kick anyone out of an opportunity to perform for free and/or solicit money or attention, but it would be nice if I didn't have to turn up my headphones, I'm sure that will cost me in my old age.