6 ms·

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

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.
- shukantpal 5y ago
  We don't have to treat each other as humans, either, by that logic.
  - emteycz 5y ago
    Who said you should extend that logic from advertising to personal relationships?
    - shukantpal 5y ago
      I don't have a personal relationship with you.
      - emteycz 5y ago
        People-to-people relationships, sorry for my English, I'm not a native speaker.
  - b3morales 5y ago
    Are you saying that the only reason to treat other humans well is because the law says you must? I would say that is precisely backwards: one should treat other humans well, for a variety of reasons. We write that down in law as a shared agreement. But the law is not itself the reason -- it springs from the reasons.
    - shukantpal 5y ago
      Well the OP's post was based on rejecting all those "reasons" you're talking about. Those reasons can also apply to other things like not doing theft, not burning down other people's properties, etc.
  - hammock 5y ago
    That is so true! And just as there are people who dehumanize, there are laws which do the same.
  - DarylZero 5y ago
- blackhaz 5y ago
  I don't understand you. You're saying we can go about, say, murdering people and we are fine with that as long as we don't get caught? Is breaking social agreement acceptable if enforcement fails? If my personal ethics allows me to break the law, but enforcement fails, can I still claim to be a positive element of the society? What I am saying is that society has agreed not to damage each other's property, has agreed to a certain principle. The society has, basically, agreed that enduring outdoor ads is acceptable, while enduring random property damage is not, as there are no exceptions for ad vandalism -- that's what I call to respect here -- agreed principles. If we don't agree with that, we must change the law. If society we live in is ripe for the change, then it should be possible. If not, we have no moral right to do property damage while leveraging all the benefits of living in that society.
  - DarylZero 5y ago
    The law doesn't come from "society agreeing" -- it's imposed by the strong on the weak and the young.
    - blackhaz 5y ago
      Well, if we can't agree with the rule of law then what, we're back to a primitive society? I don't think homo sapiens culture is, at this stage, advanced enough to thrive in a primitive community, how attractive that may sound. In a few hundred or thousand years, perhaps?
      - DarylZero 5y ago
        You are fundamentally mistaken about what "the rule of law" is. The rule of law is not based on "agreement" but enforcement. Even the veneer of agreement is based on enforcement. Historically, this has taken the form of enforced religion. Today, enforced school attendance serves a similar role.
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.

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.
shukantpal 5y ago
We don't have to treat each other as humans, either, by that logic.
- emteycz 5y ago
  Who said you should extend that logic from advertising to personal relationships?
  - shukantpal 5y ago
    I don't have a personal relationship with you.
    - emteycz 5y ago
      People-to-people relationships, sorry for my English, I'm not a native speaker.
- b3morales 5y ago
  Are you saying that the only reason to treat other humans well is because the law says you must? I would say that is precisely backwards: one should treat other humans well, for a variety of reasons. We write that down in law as a shared agreement. But the law is not itself the reason -- it springs from the reasons.
  - shukantpal 5y ago
    Well the OP's post was based on rejecting all those "reasons" you're talking about. Those reasons can also apply to other things like not doing theft, not burning down other people's properties, etc.
- hammock 5y ago
  That is so true! And just as there are people who dehumanize, there are laws which do the same.
- DarylZero 5y ago
blackhaz 5y ago
I don't understand you. You're saying we can go about, say, murdering people and we are fine with that as long as we don't get caught? Is breaking social agreement acceptable if enforcement fails? If my personal ethics allows me to break the law, but enforcement fails, can I still claim to be a positive element of the society? What I am saying is that society has agreed not to damage each other's property, has agreed to a certain principle. The society has, basically, agreed that enduring outdoor ads is acceptable, while enduring random property damage is not, as there are no exceptions for ad vandalism -- that's what I call to respect here -- agreed principles. If we don't agree with that, we must change the law. If society we live in is ripe for the change, then it should be possible. If not, we have no moral right to do property damage while leveraging all the benefits of living in that society.
- DarylZero 5y ago
  The law doesn't come from "society agreeing" -- it's imposed by the strong on the weak and the young.
  - blackhaz 5y ago
    Well, if we can't agree with the rule of law then what, we're back to a primitive society? I don't think homo sapiens culture is, at this stage, advanced enough to thrive in a primitive community, how attractive that may sound. In a few hundred or thousand years, perhaps?
    - DarylZero 5y ago
      You are fundamentally mistaken about what "the rule of law" is. The rule of law is not based on "agreement" but enforcement. Even the veneer of agreement is based on enforcement. Historically, this has taken the form of enforced religion. Today, enforced school attendance serves a similar role.

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.