> And people saying they're ok with graffiti and vandalism are really saying that they're ok with other people's property to be graffitied and vandalised, not t

> And people saying they're ok with graffiti and vandalism are really saying that they're ok with other people's property to be graffitied and vandalised, not their own. At an extreme if Banskey wanted to graffity something of mine I'd be incredibly happy so this is just plain incorrect. Probably not big on people tagging my stuff, but this is not what you are implying. Visual pollution is a thing, as you seem to agree since to you graffiti is vandalism (compared to invasion of property rights for instance), but by this standard why does a business owner get to then visually pollute outside of their property?