UPDATE January 26, 5:21 a.m.: A change.org petition has been launched to fight the measure.
If you’re a musician or DJ playing Philadelphia in the near future, the city’s police department wants to have you on file. You know, in case anything happens. And to maybe cancel your show if you’re deemed any sort of threat.
According to a report today by Philly news website Billy Penn, a new bill from a local councilman “would require owners of nightclubs, cabarets, bars and restaurants in the city to collect the names, addresses, and phone numbers of entertainers — bands, rappers and DJs — in a registry, and to share that personal information with police upon request.”
You can read the full legislation here.
The bill would reportedly extend to any performers touring through Philadelphia, making the ramifications of the legislature reach far beyond than the local music scene. More from Billy Penn‘s Dustin Slaughter: “The proposal, which was introduced last week and is headed to a committee hearing, would directly involve the Philadelphia Police Department in the approval process for so-called ‘Special Assembly Occupancy’ licenses — giving law enforcement de facto veto power over whether shows can be held at venues that hold 50 or more people.”
Among the factors police would weigh in wielding that “veto power” would be, according to the bill, things like “crime, traffic, litter, noise, parking and hours of operation; as well as any community concerns, particularly those of neighbors in the immediate vicinity.”
Councilman Mark Squilla wrote an email to Billy Penn, stating that having performers personal information would allow police to “review past performances to see if there were any public safety issues during their events,” but said that no one artist in particular sparked the creation of the bill. Councilwoman Maria Quiñones-Sanchez, Chairwoman of the Committee on Licenses and Inspections, said her department has concerns over certain performers who “have been known to have created incidents and violence at their previous acts.” She didn’t name names.
Naturally, the Pennsylvania chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union is concerned. “This bill reflects a strange expansion of police duties and a dangerous muddling of the line between law enforcement and business licensing,” said Mary Catherine Roper, Deputy Legal Director of the Pennsylvania ACLU. “No one can expect the PPD to approach this function the same way that L&I would approach it. They will approach it as another police function, informed by police priorities that may not be appropriate to the task.”
Keep it locked to Billy Penn for updates on this story.