imprinted with various philosophical messages,” One World One Family Now v. City of Honolulu, 76 F.3d 1009, 1011 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 519 U.S. 1009, 117 S.Ct. 554, 136 L.Ed.2d 403 (1996); a street musician’s sale of his recorded music and sale by an “activist” of “literature, books, t-shirts, bumper stickers, buttons, and other articles bearing political slogans,” Perry v. Los Angeles Police Dept., 121 F.3d 1365, 1366-67 (9th ntiffs’ sale of shea butter and incense was not “fully protected speech” because they “are selling items that have a predominant that nonprofit corporations’ sales of “T-shirts imprinted with various philosophical messages” were “within the ambit of the First Amendment”), or when they “serve a predominantly expressive purpose.” Mastrovincenzo, 435 F.3d at 97 (<HOLDING>). If a plaintiffs sale of merchandise
holding that artists graffitipainted clothing items serve a predominantly expressive purpose and their sale is consequently protected under the first amendment holding that raising chickens is not an expressive act for the purposes of the first amendment holding that the video games at issue are expressive and qualify as speech for purposes of the first amendment holding that the sale of a painted portrait was incidental to the provision of an artists creative services holding that the first amendment protects an artists original paintings and that plaintiffs sale of his paintings did not remove them from the ambit of protected expression