4 ms·
So the court's decision is basically that you have a right to free speech even on other people's private property, against the owner's wishes? How is this decis
by josephcsible 3y ago
So the court's decision is basically that you have a right to free speech even on other people's private property, against the owner's wishes? How is this decision compatible with Big Tech being allowed to censor people?
- vlovich123 3y agoThis applies just to Seattle and specifically: > On its face, the Ordinance sweeps so broadly that it criminalizes innocuous drawings (from a child’s drawing of a mermaid to pro-police messages written by the Seattle Police Foundation) that can hardly be said to constitute 'visual blight' and which would naturally wash away in the next rain storm," Pechman wrote. So basically the ordinance is poorly written.
- seanmcdirmid 3y agoThe judge backtracked on that ruling, saying you don't have the right to damage private property. See https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/law-justice/judge-clarifies-graffiti-injunction-allows-seattle-to-make-certain-arrests/ https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/law-justice/judge-... or https://archive.ph/TKatu https://archive.ph/TKatu to get around the paywall. The injunction was awarded against: > Pechman’s order was in response to a lawsuit filed by four people who were arrested in 2021 for writing anti-cop slogans in temporary chalk outside a police precinct. So...I think we can agree that four people writing anti-cop slogans using temporary chalk outside a police precint...at least is not property destruction. Actually, if you actually read the ruling, the impetus for it is quite reasonable, but perhaps worded too vaguely.