Kiss Your Civil Rights Goodbye (graffiti charges for chalk protest)

[Soulfly]

I agree with the message, but I also think that it can be construed as vandalism.]

Ditto! I think people have the right to free speech, I may not agree with everyone, but as long as they don't break the law, there is nothing legally I can do nor can I break a law to stop them. I can ignore it. I have to give the same respect to property owners right to report a crime regardless if I agree with this crime or not.

 

[Trigger Hippie]

What would happen if you stopped conflating free speech (which doesn't exist, anyway!) with criminal damage?

So you consider someone chalking the front of your house "criminal damage", but chalking a sidewalk in front of a bank is not criminal damage because "no person or animal got hurt; no property was damaged. That's not vandalism".

Double standard, n'est pas mon vieux?

 

[Oxymoron]

lee, what is the least offensive scenario in which you would consider drawing with chalk to be illegal?

Clearly you would consider me drawing a giant penis in chalk on the side of your house to be illegal. But where do you draw the line?

For one that would be on my property and 2 would be both offensive, intimidating and threatening to an individual and or their family members.

We are talking about not only a bank here but 'THE BANK OF AMERICA'.... a giant corporation that has exerted pressure at the highest level to bring about this 'unusual prosecution'. He did not draw lewd signs or write threats nor did he write anything illegal... I suggest that is entirely different.

Obviously the bank does not like what he has written but they have stretched the law to the limit in forcing a prosecution under a relatively new and unrelated law, (the origins and purpose of which are still unclear).

Free speech is not 'free', whatever the medium. Everyone accepts that you cannot go around causing distress, slandering, threatening or inciting violence without regard. There are many laws in place to prevent this.

It is significant that he has not been prosecuted under any of these laws which clearly show that 'what he wrote' is not illegal... the medium is not illegal, (otherwise everyone would be prosecuted inc kids). Therefore they have combined two elements, neither of which is 'illegal per se', into a circumstance that is now considered illegal act.

It is clearly an attack on free speech... one of many I might add as the laws are getting tighter and tighter on all expressions of peaceful dissent... which is the mark of a totalitarian state.

I think 'they' are forcing people into combative positions by these types of actions. Creating laws which are unjust, simply to combat peaceful dissent means that people are forced into stronger opposition to combat the unjust laws.

That is why America sought independence in the first place.

 

[lee h oswald]

lee, what is the least offensive scenario in which you would consider drawing with chalk to be illegal?

Clearly you would consider me drawing a giant penis in chalk on the side of your house to be illegal. But where do you draw the line?

If, if, if.....it might be uncivil - but it shouldn't be 'illegal' to draw with chalk on pavements and the like. And as for

Clearly you would consider me drawing a giant penis in chalk on the side of your house to be illegal

then clearly you're wrong. I might have a number of feelings about it - I might be annoyed; I might laugh; I might like it (if it was done artfully, or even done badly - depends). One thing I most certainly would not do would be to call the law. Even if I found a giant chalk penis on the side of my house offensive, I wouldn't find it as offensive as the idea that 'free speech has its limits' which is just a tad oxymoronic.

Anyway, it's all just more irrelevant conjecture and hypothesis; there are no gangs of delinquent chalk-wielders, sullying the good neighbourhoods of the US with their side-of-yer-house-giant-chalk-penis-ideas, are there? If it's a real criminal you want, then look inside a bank; leave the poor guy alone. No more ifs, buts and maybes.

 

[Soulfly]

Wouldn't it then be that this guys defense needs to show that people reported children's chalk art or writings and the courts did nothing? I think it highly more likely that no one has reported a kids chalk art and the only time people call something like this in, is when they are offended by it. Someone has to report a crime to prosecute, does anyone find it odd people don't call in children for chalk art? I don't. What he wrote is not on trial where he wrote it and with what is.

 

[Soulfly]

When I was a kid I had a bad hopscotch accident, I was horribly disfigured and the site of a hopscotch on the ground sends me into a panic attack. I am highly offended parents could allow their children to engage in such dangerous behavior. I report all hopscotch chalk drawings I see on public sidewalks!

 

[lee h oswald]

So you consider someone chalking the front of your house "criminal damage", but chalking a sidewalk in front of a bank is not criminal damage because "no person or animal got hurt; no property was damaged. That's not vandalism".

Double standard, n'est pas mon vieux?

Pas du tout. T'as pas compris. Evidement.

 

[Oxymoron]

I would agree, were it not for the fact that it's actually considered vandalism.

Are you suggesting that any law, however unjust it is, should go unchallenged?

 

[David Fraser]

Are you suggesting that any law, however unjust it is, should go unchallenged?

Unjust to who? Justice can be very subjective don't you think? I know plenty of people that think they gave been treated unjustly (mainly because they git caught ;-) ). However yes laws should be challenged and that is why there are legal mechanisms to do so.

 

[Trigger Hippie]

Are you suggesting that any law, however unjust it is, should go unchallenged?

Not at all.

Are you suggesting that one challenges "unjust" laws by breaking them?

 

[lee h oswald]

Ditto! I think people have the right to free speech, I may not agree with everyone, but as long as they don't break the law, there is nothing legally I can do nor can I break a law to stop them. I can ignore it. I have to give the same respect to property owners right to report a crime regardless if I agree with this crime or not.

You're obsessed by 'the law' [Edit: and that goes for more than just you, I see] - if not in thrall to it, as if it is the thing that must be obeyed - not so sanguine, please. You know Martin Luther King 'broke the law' - along with thousands of other USAmericans, black and white, in order to break apartheid America (not so long ago). Daniel Ellsberg 'broke the law'. Mohamed Ali refused the Vietnam draft - went to prison for refusing participation in the slaughter. Bradley Manning, spoke out on war crimes and now a victim of torture. Ed Snowden 'broke the law' - in order to advise you that you are being spied on in a way which is 'breaking the law'. See how laws need to be broken? Yes, Need.

 

[Soulfly]

You're obsessed by 'the law' [Edit: and that goes for more than just you, I see] - if not in thrall to it, as if it is the thing that must be obeyed - not so sanguine, please. You know Martin Luther King 'broke the law' - along with thousands of other USAmericans, black and white, in order to break apartheid America (not so long ago). Daniel Ellsberg 'broke the law'. Mohamed Ali refused the Vietnam draft - went to prison for refusing participation in the slaughter. Bradley Manning, spoke out on war crimes and now a victim of torture. Ed Snowden 'broke the law' - in order to advise you that you are being spied on in a way which is 'breaking the law'. See how laws need to be broken? Yes, Need.

I'm with giving respect to rights no matter if it is free speech and/or someone's right to use legal means against vandalism. We seem to disagree on what is vandalism and what is not. I don't think these anti bank statements are remotely close to the issues like the 60's civil rights movement. If the LGBT rights movement started breaking laws to have their demands met I wouldn't complain about it.

 

[David Fraser]

I make no apologies for having an interest in the law. Not only has it helped in previous jobs but given that we have a Common Law system I think that everyone should have a good grounding in how laws are made in the courts. How else can one challenge the system if you don't know how it works?

 

[lee h oswald]

In fact - I think the entire US citizenry should bring a class action against the NSA - and then when they got to court, they'd have to have someone say that this case was The People vs The People. If everyone chucked in, er, let's say, 2 cents...

 

[Soulfly]

In fact - I think the entire US citizenry should bring a class action against the NSA - and then when they got to court, they'd have to have someone say that this case was The People vs The People. If everyone chucked in, er, let's say, 2 cents...

That isn't what this thread is about though. It is about a vandalism case.

 

[lee h oswald]

I make no apologies for having an interest in the law. Not only has it helped in previous jobs but given that we have a Common Law system I think that everyone should have a good grounding in how laws are made in the courts. How else can one challenge the system if you don't know how it works?

Did someone ask you to apologize for having an interest?

I think that everyone should have a good grounding in how laws are made in the courts

Yes, except that the laws are made by Parliament, then interpreted by the courts.

How else can one challenge the system if you don't know how it works?

Well, quite.

 

[lee h oswald]

That isn't what this thread is about though. It is about a vandalism case.

What - but chalking a giant penis on the side of my house is?

 

[Soulfly]

What - but chalking a giant penis on the side of my house is?

Well Mick brought that up because doing so could be considered vandalism. So yeah that falls within the confines of a discussion about vandalism.

 

[solrey]

Many cities have enacted laws to help curtail and eradicate graffiti, San Diego is one of them. In San Diego, property owners are required to keep the parts of their properties visible from public right-of-ways free of graffiti. If the sidewalk is the property owners responsibility, then they are required to keep it free of graffiti as well. These laws are written and enforced at the local level by the City Council.

http://www.sandiego.gov/graffiti/about/whatis.shtml

Graffiti is Not Art

Graffiti is not art; it is vandalism. It is prohibited when done without permission of the property owner. Furthermore, San Diego Municipal Code Section 54.0405 (PDF) requires that property owners keep all walls, buildings, fences, signs and other structures and surfaces visible from the public right-of-way free of graffiti.
New City Ordinance

In November 2000, the San Diego City Council amended the City's Graffiti Ordinance to revise the official definition of "graffiti" as follows:
"Graffiti means any unauthorized inscription, word, figure, picture, or design that is sprayed, marked, cut, posted, pasted or otherwise affixed, drawn or painted on any surface of public or private property."

Content from External Source

As much as I disagree with the banking system, in the process of expressing his distaste for BofA, dude broke a law that a lot of people happen to strongly agree with and I think he should be held accountable for his chosen form of expression. Nobody is trying to curtail his right of free expression but there are, and should be, reasonable limits on how that expression manifests itself. By all indications, he'll probably just get a slap on the wrist... maybe a few hours of community service helping clean graffiti?

 

[lee h oswald]

That isn't what this thread is about though. It is about a vandalism case.

When did you have the sense of humour bypass?

 

[Soulfly]

When did you have the sense of humour bypass?

I guess #47 wasn't funny?

 

[Joe Newman]

First Amendment doesn't give anyone the right to write on public property, in California it's water soluble or not. If someone complains about it and it doesn't rain, that means someone has to come out and wash it off. That cost money.

Yeah, you are right. That cost money. That said, the poor BoA constrictor "victim" has, er, allegedly perpetrated some crimes that have cost folks some money, too, but it seems it's gonna take a little more than rain to wash the residue away. http://rol.st/Znejzs

I think there may be a connection in here somewhere, but I just chalk it up to my pareidolia flaring up.

 

[Mick West]

Yeah, you are right. That cost money. That said, the poor BoA constrictor "victim" has, er, allegedly perpetrated some crimes that have cost folks some money, too, but it seems it's gonna take a little more than rain to wash the residue away. http://rol.st/Znejzs

I think there may be a connection in here somewhere, but I just chalk it up to my pareidolia flaring up.

Sure, he was protesting what he saw as their wrongs. But again, it's where do you draw the line? Did he or did he not commit vandalism?

Was chalking the sidewalk really the only option he had to get his message across?

 

[Met Watch]

I get the frustration over the fact that the guy was protesting over a cause that deserves a whole lot of attention, but to suggest that this was a bank crushing your civil liberties is an over-reaction to the highest, highest degree. As loose of the definition of vandalism is in the state of California, the guy committed a crime and should be held accountable. He's not going to be in jail for a decade or two, but as solrey suggested, a few hours of community service will probably suffice.

 

[Joe Newman]

Are you suggesting that one challenges "unjust" laws by breaking them?

Crazy idea, sure, but it has happened once or twice I'm sure.

 

[lee h oswald]

In November 2000, the San Diego City Council amended the City's Graffiti Ordinance to revise the official definition of "graffiti" as follows:
"Graffiti means any unauthorized inscription, word, figure, picture, or design that is sprayed, marked, cut, posted, pasted or otherwise affixed, drawn or painted on any surface of public or private property."[/EX]

As much as I disagree with the banking system, in the process of expressing his distaste for BofA, dude broke a law that a lot of people happen to strongly agree with and I think he should be held accountable for his chosen form of expression. Nobody is trying to curtail his right of free expression but there are, and should be, reasonable limits on how that expression manifests itself. By all indications, he'll probably just get a slap on the wrist... maybe a few hours of community service helping clean graffiti?

We're talking about chalk on the pavement here. The idea he should be 'held accountable' for his 'form of expression' (listen to yourself!) or that 'nobody is trying to curtail his right of free expression' - - - What??! 'Goodthinking' at its very pinnacle. Threatening a powerless individual with prison and fines for chalking on the pavement isn't 'curtailing his right' etc.'?! And all prefaced with the 'I don't like banks but....' Really, check yourself, it's an affront to decency to even consider making someone 'accountable' for such trivia - focusing a little attention on the really serious criminals might help to diffuse the desire to extract 'justice' (prurient as it is) out of some poor innocent - you never know. I highly doubt it, though.

 

[Met Watch]

We're talking about chalk on the pavement here. The idea he should be 'held accountable' for his 'form of expression' (listen to yourself!) or that 'nobody is trying to curtail his right of free expression' - - - What??! 'Goodthinking' at its very pinnacle. Threatening a powerless individual with prison and fines for chalking on the pavement isn't 'curtailing his right' etc.'?! And all prefaced with the 'I don't like banks but....' Really, check yourself, it's an affront to decency to even consider making someone 'accountable' for such trivia - focusing a little attention on the really serious criminals might help to diffuse the desire to extract 'justice' (prurient as it is) out of some poor innocent - you never know. I highly doubt it, though.

Yes, we are. Did you read the definition of graffiti? "Any unauthorized inscription, word, figure, picture....drawn or painted on any surface of public or private property."

1) Whatever this guy wrote was unauthorized.
2) It was drawn on public property.

The law does not take into account what is happening in the world at the time. It does not care whether there is anger at the banks. The guy wrote graffiti on a public sidewalk without permission from the city of San Diego, which means, according to the legal definition, he committed drew graffiti on the sidewalk, which can be seen as an act of vandalism. Is it frustrating when the banks are beyond corrupt? Yes. Bottom line, he broke the law. Have him do some community service hours and let him be on his way.

 

[lee h oswald]

Yes, we are. Did you read the definition of graffiti? "Any unauthorized inscription, word, figure, picture....drawn or painted on any surface of public or private property."

1) Whatever this guy wrote was unauthorized.
2) It was drawn on public property.

The law does not take into account what is happening in the world at the time. It does not care whether there is anger at the banks. The guy wrote graffiti on a public sidewalk without permission from the city of San Diego, which means, according to the legal definition, he committed drew graffiti on the sidewalk, which can be seen as an act of vandalism. Is it frustrating when the banks are beyond corrupt? Yes. Bottom line, he broke the law. Have him do some community service hours and let him be on his way.

You just keep on conforming - it's what you're good at.

 

[Soulfly]

You just keep on conforming - it's what you're good at.

So your view is that anyone should be allowed to write anything they want on public property as long as it is in chalk?

 

[Joe Newman]

Sure, he was protesting what he saw as their wrongs. But again, it's where do you draw the line? Did he or did he not commit vandalism?

Was chalking the sidewalk really the only option he had to get his message across?

No, I'm sure there were other avenues he could have gone down. Why he decided to bypass them and go over the top and grab the chalk I cannot say. Maybe it had something to do with the "wrongs" of BoA and the way folks seem to just brush those aside.

Of course, one might say that this isn't really about the wrongs BoA but the actions of a poor schlub with chalkdust under his nails, but I don't draw the line that way because it's too neat.

But to answer your question, yes, he did commit vandalism and BoA was the victim of that vandalism. On the other hand, BoA has committed heinous deeds of enormous proportion and it strikes me as odd that the heat seems to be going to chalk guy and the support going to the bank when there is absolutely no equivalence between the two wrongs and the effects of each on all of us.

 

[lee h oswald]

Was chalking the sidewalk really the only option he had to get his message across?

No - he could've got hold of a semi-automatic and wasted a few poor sap bank employees before wasting himself. But the devious bastard went for the chalk option. I think you should bring a suit against him for potential calcium poisoning. Failing that, we should lynch him - a favourite American pasttime, too! Win win. Spectacle and 'justice' all in one. Whaddya reckon?

 

[lee h oswald]

So your view is that anyone should be allowed to write anything they want on public property as long as it is in chalk?

Is it really?

 

[Soulfly]

Is it really?

I don't know is it? That is why I asked you the question.

 

[Critical Thinker]

You just keep on conforming - it's what you're good at.

Critical Thinking (logic) and Intellectual Rigor require conformity to a type of thought process and reasoning. Persons that strive to utilize those skills would be flattered by your recognition of their conforming.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_thinking

"Critical thinking employs not only logic (either formal or, much more often, informal) but also broad intellectual criteria such as clarity, credibility, accuracy,precision, relevance, depth, breadth, significance and fairness"


Intellectual Rigor and Honesty:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rigour

"Intellectual rigour is an important part, though not the whole, of intellectual honesty — which means keeping one's convictions in proportion to one's valid evidence."

 

[lee h oswald]

Well Mick brought that up because doing so could be considered vandalism. So yeah that falls within the confines of a discussion about vandalism.

Careful stretching your tongue like that, you'll do yourself a mischief.

 

[Soulfly]

Careful stretching your tongue like that, you'll do yourself a mischief.

I don't follow. What am I stretching? I didn't make any comments about drawing penises on your house, that was Mick.

 

[Joe Newman]

Is it frustrating when the banks are beyond corrupt? Yes. Bottom line, he broke the law. Have him do some community service hours and let him be on his way.

That seems a little soft. Maybe on top of the community service, he should pay BoA for damages as well, eh? Or better yet, maybe we could all chip in like we did the last time the beyond corrupt banks broke the law, the economy, and the countless mashed up folks still roiling around in the wake of the bottom line shenanigans of BoA and the rest of the vipers.

 

[Soulfly]

That seems a little soft. Maybe on top of the community service, he should pay BoA for damages as well, eh? Or better yet, maybe we could all chip in like we did the last time the beyond corrupt banks broke the law, the economy, and the countless mashed up folks still roiling around in the wake of the bottom line shenanigans of BoA and the rest of the vipers.

The sidewalk is owned by the city so any damages is owed to the city not BoA. BoA just reported the vandalism.

 

[Mick West]

That seems a little soft. Maybe on top of the community service, he should pay BoA for damages as well, eh? Or better yet, maybe we could all chip in like we did the last time the beyond corrupt banks broke the law, the economy, and the countless mashed up folks still roiling around in the wake of the bottom line shenanigans of BoA and the rest of the vipers.

You are conflating issues. He vandalized some property. So it should be treated like any vandalism case. What BofA did is a different issue.

 

[Oxymoron]

I get the frustration over the fact that the guy was protesting over a cause that deserves a whole lot of attention, but to suggest that this was a bank crushing your civil liberties is an over-reaction to the highest, highest degree. As loose of the definition of vandalism is in the state of California, the guy committed a crime and should be held accountable. He's not going to be in jail for a decade or two, but as solrey suggested, a few hours of community service will probably suffice.

I find it incredible that so many debunkers are eager to say ...'he committed a crime he needs to be held accountable' over a bit of chalk on a pavement and yet apart from a few 'I am no fan of the banks' statements... where are all outraged calls for them to be held accountable.

I am sorry but the disparity is palpable and highly disturbing.