Aren't we using the term "street performer" a bit loosely?

Don't know about you, but when we think "street performer," we think of the talented individuals that line the sidewalks of cities like San Francisco, Seattle and New York. You know, the guys that will walk a tight rope while juggling fire (like the guy pictured). Now that's a street performer!

Apparently, the ACLU has another definition: anyone with an egg crate and a cup.

According to the LV Sun, our local "street performers" (you know, those guys you trip over while trying to negotiate the smut-peddlers on the strip) are suing the county on First Amendment grounds via the ACLU. Metro has been issuing them citations, and they're not going to take it anymore!

You may remember that it was the ACLU that gave the okay to those wonderful palm-slapping illegals residency-challenged fellows to get in everyone's face at crosswalks, despite the free availability of porn and "escorts" on the internet.

The ACLU's argument is great:

"Metro targets street performers while allowing others, such as hand-billers and street preachers, to utilize the same areas it excludes street performers from,'' the suit charges.

Yeah, it's a shame that Metro no longer targets those nasty "hand-billers," wonder why that is?Nothing like using a precedent that you created to argue for the advancement of that same precedent. Well played, ACLU, well played.

We propose a compromise: The street performers can stay if you take back the palm-slappers. Deal?

(LV Sun)