3 ms·

I completely agree with you. If a billboard company puts up a billboard against the property owner's will and then claims they can't take it down because it's t

I completely agree with you. If a billboard company puts up a billboard against the property owner's will and then claims they can't take it down because it's their preferred form of art, and it's really truly their right to place billboards wherever they want, I believe the company should be dissolved, its executives jailed, and the proceeds of the asset sale distributed to those wronged. Now lets apply the same standard to graffiti.

bondarchuk 3y ago
For me it's not so much about the property owner who owns the place where the billboard or graffiti is put up, but the people who are forced to look at it when they walk around town. From that perspective I think graffiti and billboards are about equally lacking in free choice on the part of who has to look at them, and billboards aim to manipulate you, grab as much attention as possible, and make you spend money, while graffiti is mostly just sitting there. So as long as cities are full of billboards I will never complain about graffiti.
- RestlessMind 3y ago
  > but the people who are forced to look at it Those people have rights to vote for politicians, or run for local offices, who control such billboards. They should exercise those rights.
  - JohnFen 3y ago
    Sure, but until/unless they are successful, they're still being forced to put up with that corporate graffiti.
    - RestlessMind 3y ago
      So, only one election cycle? Given that corporate graffiti has been around for centuries maybe, I guess no one really cares about it being there.
- anon291 3y ago
  You do not have a right to not see other people or their things. That is not a right. Your rights end the moment you're talking about someone else's being. What next? The right not to look at children? Come on, this is ridiculous. Corporations are groups of people and people have a basic human right to congregate. Personally, I like some grafitti, but I'm absolutely against tagging. It is immoral, unethical, and thuggish behavior. When property owners put up graffiti of their own (or commission an artist to do it), I think it can be a nice splash of color in an urban environ.

bondarchuk 3y ago

For me it's not so much about the property owner who owns the place where the billboard or graffiti is put up, but the people who are forced to look at it when they walk around town. From that perspective I think graffiti and billboards are about equally lacking in free choice on the part of who has to look at them, and billboards aim to manipulate you, grab as much attention as possible, and make you spend money, while graffiti is mostly just sitting there. So as long as cities are full of billboards I will never complain about graffiti.

RestlessMind 3y ago
> but the people who are forced to look at it Those people have rights to vote for politicians, or run for local offices, who control such billboards. They should exercise those rights.
- JohnFen 3y ago
  Sure, but until/unless they are successful, they're still being forced to put up with that corporate graffiti.
  - RestlessMind 3y ago
    So, only one election cycle? Given that corporate graffiti has been around for centuries maybe, I guess no one really cares about it being there.
anon291 3y ago
You do not have a right to not see other people or their things. That is not a right. Your rights end the moment you're talking about someone else's being. What next? The right not to look at children? Come on, this is ridiculous. Corporations are groups of people and people have a basic human right to congregate. Personally, I like some grafitti, but I'm absolutely against tagging. It is immoral, unethical, and thuggish behavior. When property owners put up graffiti of their own (or commission an artist to do it), I think it can be a nice splash of color in an urban environ.