7 ms·

Fuck that indeed. Very strong message here, and I love it. I wish I could take all those ads and shove them into their asses. But what is being suggested here?

Fuck that indeed. Very strong message here, and I love it. I wish I could take all those ads and shove them into their asses. But what is being suggested here? What's mine to take? If I see an ad, can I reuse the artwork? No. If I see a car, I can't just copy it's design. Can I just paint over it, or rip it apart? No, that would be vandalism. As much as I hate ads, THEY have re-arranged the world by paying for it in a free market, and we must respect that. Soviet Union had very little ads. So, yes, we must ask permission until we figure out a better way.

DarylZero 5y ago
> Can I just paint over it, or rip it apart? That's what Banksy does and says "yes" to. > No, that would be vandalism. So what? That's just a word. > As much as I hate ads, THEY have re-arranged the world by paying for it in a free market, and we must respect that. LOL, but why "must we"? You have no reasoning, no justification.
- blackhaz 5y ago
  It's not just a word, it's a law, from UK's Criminal Damage Act 1971: "A person who without lawful excuse destroys or damages any property belonging to another intending to destroy or damage any such property or being reckless as to whether any such property would be destroyed or damaged shall be guilty of an offence." But whether we should change that law is probably an off-topic here. All I am saying is that we must respect the law. If we don't agree with the law, we must try to change it, and not just go about destroying each other's property.
  - squeaky-clean 5y ago
    Legal laws are also just words. It's not like you can reproduce punishment for vandalism in a laboratory with a bunch of stones.
  - DarylZero 5y ago
    What does it mean to say "we must respect the law"? Banksy demonstrates that this is not true. You only need to avoid law enforcement. It seems to me, of course I have no way of knowing, but it SEEMS to me that you are NOT EVEN AWARE that you're not making arguments.
    - 5e92cb50239222b 5y ago
      Most cities in my country have multiple street cameras on every corner. Good luck "avoiding the law" here.
      - runarberg 5y ago
        There are still ways around that. A small act of sabotage is not worth the enforcement for most police agencies, unless you live in a very fascist country. So a small precaution might be enough to avoid it.
      - vaylian 5y ago
        Which is the next problem. Again, a highly asymmetric relationship between the surveillants and the surveilled people.
      - ipaddr 5y ago
        Most cities have mask requirements and many cities like SF won't even followup on these types of crimes. The more cameras exist on street corners the less likely the police will get involved.
      - hermes8329 5y ago
        How do those camera work at night with a peep wearing a ski mask? Or even an IR hat
        5e92cb50239222b 5y ago
        They manage just fine. About 8-9 months ago they were used to find a couple of vandals who were destroying bus stops at night. The cops traced them from camera to camera and sent a patrol car as a welcoming party.
  - itisit 5y ago
    > If we don't agree with the law, we must try to change it, and not just go about destroying each other's property. But in the case of vandalizing advertisements, breaking the law is a risk some of us are gleefully willing to take.
  - _dain_ 5y ago
    nobody goes to jail for scribbling over an ad
    - squarefoot 5y ago
      Or painting flowers, which could indeed be treated as vandalism, but that way would also attract too much public attention to the cause, which is something the higher powers would avoid as much as possible.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - cataphract 5y ago
    If you're saying that everyone should/must follow the law in all circumstances, that's an extreme position few people would agree with. This would mean inform on Jews to the Nazis or returning slaves to their owners under the Fugitives Slaves Act, to take an example from a democracy. That's even without considering that many laws are somewhat indeterminate, internally inconsistent or at odds with other laws. If you're saying that there is an a priori moral presumption that laws should be followed, maybe because they represent (possibly) some sort of societal consensus, than that is a closer question, but it doesn't resolve the question of whether the legal rights of the advertisers ought to, in a moral sense, be respected. Note though that even the US judiciary doesn't make much of a legal mandate with no penalties attached (see the last Obamacare case to reach SCOTUS).
    - blackhaz 5y ago
      Interesting examples. I would say that Germany at that point was a rather undemocratic society, with all the terror by the Nazis. Can we consider slave-owning society democratic if it includes slaves? This makes me wondering if the position of respecting the law as a form of social agreement is untenable in an undemocratic society. But then again, democracy is a spectrum... Coming to your question, I don't know. When do legal rights end and moral rights begin? Something I'd really like to read more about. I remember enjoying Michael Sandel's lectures online and then reading his book. Would really like to find something in his style on this topic.
berkes 5y ago
You shouldn't do it publicly and with your name and face with it. You aren't legally allowed to. But that is far away from "can't". Hardly anyone is going to stop you from drawing a moustache on a poster or from stickering a snarky remark over an ad or from spray painting your opinion about some advertised product on said ad.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
Hizonner 5y ago
Why, exactly, would anybody "respect that"?
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
sideshowb 5y ago
Well maybe don't take legal advice from a graffiti artist? shrug
ouid 5y ago
Banksy is talking about moral right, not legal right. This is obvious unless you're being intentionally dense. He is saying that you have cosmic permission to perform acts of vandalism to advertisements. As long as you don't get caught, you're alright with your chosen deity or whatever. It's a pretty strong philosophical argument in that direction, in my opinion. If you're disagreeing with that point, you should be explicit. You're arguing that these companies are paying for the advertising, but they aren't paying you to throw the rocks at your head, they're paying the building from which they obtain their vantage point. I don't think that actually qualifies as "paying for it", morally.
- boneitis 5y ago
  > moral right, not legal right Thank you, this pretty neatly covers what I would have liked to add but couldn't find words for. I find it pleasing to approach his approach as works and displays of art. Are they explicit calls to aggressive, rebellious arms? Maybe. Is he selling out from commercializing on his art? Perhaps. I don't really care to respond directly to either of those questions here. Mainly want to give a shoutout to his Barcode stencil, which made a really big impression on me so far (I haven't finished the Banksy book that I found it in) and that I think is pretty fitting here. Looking around on the web, it seems there are variants, but the one with the leopard is great.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- blackhaz 5y ago
  I am afraid extending personal "moral rights" to the domain of property damage is a risky avenue to pursue. Who defines what's moral? I also don't agree with that the failure of enforcement by the society automatically grants anybody a moral right to break the law. What about all uncaught murderers? Actually, it is interesting we transverse to physical damage here. I wouldn't equate seeing outdoor ads to receiving bodily harm, to a theft of a piece of "consciousness" or attention - eh, maybe... I don't know much about philosophy, but what if we can assume that legal rights end and moral rights begin only when we deal with someone's natural rights, is this tenable? If we take the Declaration of Independence as a starting point, as long as there is no danger to our life, liberty and pursuit of happiness, we should not deem ourselves as being in the power to judge what property we can damage ourselves. Sounds like something I could live with.
losteric 5y ago
Breaking laws comes with punishments but we are still free to break laws. In some situations, there may even be an ethical imperative to break the law.
user-the-name 5y ago
> As much as I hate ads, THEY have re-arranged the world by paying for it in a free market, and we must respect that. This is garbage libertarian ideology, and it can and should be questioned and opposed at every opportunity.

DarylZero 5y ago

> Can I just paint over it, or rip it apart? That's what Banksy does and says "yes" to. > No, that would be vandalism. So what? That's just a word. > As much as I hate ads, THEY have re-arranged the world by paying for it in a free market, and we must respect that. LOL, but why "must we"? You have no reasoning, no justification.

blackhaz 5y ago
It's not just a word, it's a law, from UK's Criminal Damage Act 1971: "A person who without lawful excuse destroys or damages any property belonging to another intending to destroy or damage any such property or being reckless as to whether any such property would be destroyed or damaged shall be guilty of an offence." But whether we should change that law is probably an off-topic here. All I am saying is that we must respect the law. If we don't agree with the law, we must try to change it, and not just go about destroying each other's property.
- squeaky-clean 5y ago
  Legal laws are also just words. It's not like you can reproduce punishment for vandalism in a laboratory with a bunch of stones.
- DarylZero 5y ago
  What does it mean to say "we must respect the law"? Banksy demonstrates that this is not true. You only need to avoid law enforcement. It seems to me, of course I have no way of knowing, but it SEEMS to me that you are NOT EVEN AWARE that you're not making arguments.
  - 5e92cb50239222b 5y ago
    Most cities in my country have multiple street cameras on every corner. Good luck "avoiding the law" here.
    - runarberg 5y ago
      There are still ways around that. A small act of sabotage is not worth the enforcement for most police agencies, unless you live in a very fascist country. So a small precaution might be enough to avoid it.
    - vaylian 5y ago
      Which is the next problem. Again, a highly asymmetric relationship between the surveillants and the surveilled people.
    - ipaddr 5y ago
      Most cities have mask requirements and many cities like SF won't even followup on these types of crimes. The more cameras exist on street corners the less likely the police will get involved.
    - hermes8329 5y ago
      How do those camera work at night with a peep wearing a ski mask? Or even an IR hat
      - 5e92cb50239222b 5y ago
        They manage just fine. About 8-9 months ago they were used to find a couple of vandals who were destroying bus stops at night. The cops traced them from camera to camera and sent a patrol car as a welcoming party.
- itisit 5y ago
  > If we don't agree with the law, we must try to change it, and not just go about destroying each other's property. But in the case of vandalizing advertisements, breaking the law is a risk some of us are gleefully willing to take.
- _dain_ 5y ago
  nobody goes to jail for scribbling over an ad
  - squarefoot 5y ago
    Or painting flowers, which could indeed be treated as vandalism, but that way would also attract too much public attention to the cause, which is something the higher powers would avoid as much as possible.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- cataphract 5y ago
  If you're saying that everyone should/must follow the law in all circumstances, that's an extreme position few people would agree with. This would mean inform on Jews to the Nazis or returning slaves to their owners under the Fugitives Slaves Act, to take an example from a democracy. That's even without considering that many laws are somewhat indeterminate, internally inconsistent or at odds with other laws. If you're saying that there is an a priori moral presumption that laws should be followed, maybe because they represent (possibly) some sort of societal consensus, than that is a closer question, but it doesn't resolve the question of whether the legal rights of the advertisers ought to, in a moral sense, be respected. Note though that even the US judiciary doesn't make much of a legal mandate with no penalties attached (see the last Obamacare case to reach SCOTUS).
  - blackhaz 5y ago
    Interesting examples. I would say that Germany at that point was a rather undemocratic society, with all the terror by the Nazis. Can we consider slave-owning society democratic if it includes slaves? This makes me wondering if the position of respecting the law as a form of social agreement is untenable in an undemocratic society. But then again, democracy is a spectrum... Coming to your question, I don't know. When do legal rights end and moral rights begin? Something I'd really like to read more about. I remember enjoying Michael Sandel's lectures online and then reading his book. Would really like to find something in his style on this topic.

berkes 5y ago

You shouldn't do it publicly and with your name and face with it. You aren't legally allowed to. But that is far away from "can't". Hardly anyone is going to stop you from drawing a moustache on a poster or from stickering a snarky remark over an ad or from spray painting your opinion about some advertised product on said ad.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

Hizonner 5y ago

Why, exactly, would anybody "respect that"?

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

sideshowb 5y ago

Well maybe don't take legal advice from a graffiti artist? shrug

ouid 5y ago

Banksy is talking about moral right, not legal right. This is obvious unless you're being intentionally dense. He is saying that you have cosmic permission to perform acts of vandalism to advertisements. As long as you don't get caught, you're alright with your chosen deity or whatever. It's a pretty strong philosophical argument in that direction, in my opinion. If you're disagreeing with that point, you should be explicit. You're arguing that these companies are paying for the advertising, but they aren't paying you to throw the rocks at your head, they're paying the building from which they obtain their vantage point. I don't think that actually qualifies as "paying for it", morally.

boneitis 5y ago
> moral right, not legal right Thank you, this pretty neatly covers what I would have liked to add but couldn't find words for. I find it pleasing to approach his approach as works and displays of art. Are they explicit calls to aggressive, rebellious arms? Maybe. Is he selling out from commercializing on his art? Perhaps. I don't really care to respond directly to either of those questions here. Mainly want to give a shoutout to his Barcode stencil, which made a really big impression on me so far (I haven't finished the Banksy book that I found it in) and that I think is pretty fitting here. Looking around on the web, it seems there are variants, but the one with the leopard is great.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
blackhaz 5y ago
I am afraid extending personal "moral rights" to the domain of property damage is a risky avenue to pursue. Who defines what's moral? I also don't agree with that the failure of enforcement by the society automatically grants anybody a moral right to break the law. What about all uncaught murderers? Actually, it is interesting we transverse to physical damage here. I wouldn't equate seeing outdoor ads to receiving bodily harm, to a theft of a piece of "consciousness" or attention - eh, maybe... I don't know much about philosophy, but what if we can assume that legal rights end and moral rights begin only when we deal with someone's natural rights, is this tenable? If we take the Declaration of Independence as a starting point, as long as there is no danger to our life, liberty and pursuit of happiness, we should not deem ourselves as being in the power to judge what property we can damage ourselves. Sounds like something I could live with.

losteric 5y ago

Breaking laws comes with punishments but we are still free to break laws. In some situations, there may even be an ethical imperative to break the law.

user-the-name 5y ago

> As much as I hate ads, THEY have re-arranged the world by paying for it in a free market, and we must respect that. This is garbage libertarian ideology, and it can and should be questioned and opposed at every opportunity.