5 ms·

The public should have zero tolerance for graffiti and vandalism of public property. This guy should have been fined and stuck in jail for 30 days. End of story

by javert 13y ago

The public should have zero tolerance for graffiti and vandalism of public property. This guy should have been fined and stuck in jail for 30 days. End of story. I heard they were trying to put him away for 13 years. That is gross abuse by the justice system. If I were on the jury, I would also declare him not guilty, even though he is. P.S. You do not have a first amendment right to write on public property. People who are too stupid to understand that, don't actually deserve first amendment rights (though I will still defend their rights, anyway).

jakejake 13y ago
It's pathetic that they trumped up the offense so that writing in chalk would amount to almost the same amount of time as if he had robbed the bank.
nknighthb 13y ago
Strange, I'd previously been under the impression your username was intended to be ironic.
- javert 13y ago
  I'm glad that you got the reference, and it was never intended to be ironic. I always liked that character. Of course, I also liked Jean Valjean. Part of the genius of Hugo, and Romantic literature in general, is that you can have profoundly good characters on opposing sides.
vy8vWJlco 13y ago
30 days for chalk that washes off the first time it rains? Gum on the street is more disruptive IMHO.
ajross 13y ago
With chalk. He "wrote" on public property with chalk. Are you in favor of prosecuting people for "Lost Dog" signs stapled to telephone poles too? Good grief. Thankfully our courts have historically taken a rather broader view of the limits of political speech than you have. "Too stupid to deserve rights" indeed. That was just disgraceful, stop it.
- ars 13y ago
  Did he write on the sidewalk, or on the wall or entryway of the bank?
  - icebraining 13y ago
    From the article: "(...) on the sidewalk outside branches of the Bank of America."
jessaustin 13y ago
Hahaha, your username is entertaining and apropos.
- javert 13y ago
  Thanks!
justin66 13y ago
The first amendment was created to protect the rights of, among others, pamphleteers. This was a genuinely destructive activity at times. This dude was using nondestructive chalk. No big deal, and certainly constitutionally protected.
- javert 13y ago
  > This was a genuinely destructive activity at times. I don't see why printing pamphlets on your own printing press would be destructive. On the other hand, this guy was defacing other peoples' property (the public's). Defacing other people's property is certainly not constitutionally protected, for any reason.
  - justin66 13y ago
    > I don't see why printing pamphlets on your own printing press would be destructive. Pamphleteering involved posting bills in public spaces, using nail or glue to put up posters or pamphlets in the public square, etc. It was certainly a pain in the ass for the people who had to clean up afterward, which is why this being a living legal issue dating back a couple of hundred years. And the founders thought it was a process worthy of fundamental legal protection. As with many constitutional protections, attempts have been made to erode it by well meaning or not so well meaning government, but even in cities like New York it usually just takes a civil liberties lawsuit to make the more egregious restrictions go away. > On the other hand, this guy was defacing other peoples' property (the public's). There was no property damage and speech in public spaces is protected. > Defacing other people's property is certainly not constitutionally protected, for any reason. When interpreting the bill of rights there is a meaningful distinction between public and private property that you are apparently unaware of. This distinction affects a lot of things under the law, not just what we're talking about.
    - javert 13y ago
      I haven't seen anything in the Bill of Rights about nailing things up on public property. > interpreting the bill of rights there is a meaningful distinction between public and private property that you are apparently unaware of. That's because that distinction is not, as far as I know, actually in the Bill of Rights.
DanBC 13y ago
Why is prison an appropriate sentence for non-violent crime?
bobwaycott 13y ago
Writing with chalk on a public sidewalk is "graffiti and vandalism"? I see quite a few businesses write messages on the public sidewalks leading to and in front of their storefronts. They're never brought up on charges of graffiti and vandalism. This was not a case of graffiti and vandalism of public property, but of a private corporation not appreciating the chalker's sharing of constitutionally protected speech. Perhaps we can at least agree on the principle, if not the terms, that this was gross abuse of, not by, the justice system. Everyone deserves First Amendment rights. Whether one understands the limits of those rights is a separate matter entirely. I find much less to find fault with in the chalker than, say, a hate group protesting funerals. But even they deserve First Amendment rights.
- javert 13y ago
  Nobody deserves First Amendment rights if they undermine those very rights by making invalid and nonsensical arguments about them and thereby undermining the public's understanding of them. Nor do religious bigots who are, in fact, profoundly anti-rights. We give them rights because we don't want the government to have to judge who deserves what, which would swiftly lead to me not having rights. > chalker's sharing of constitutionally protected speech You only have a right to free speech if you don't infringe on other people's rights. Thus, you can't use other people's property, including public property. Under your logic, you could put a sign up on my house and it would be "constitutionally protected speech."
  - bobwaycott 13y ago
    Your characterization of my logic, as you put it, is grossly flawed. Your house is not public property. I've said nothing in any way to suggest putting a sign on your private residence is at all protectable free speech or in any way homologous to chalking a sidewalk. You are fabricating an argument I did not make. In so doing, you appear to either fundamentally misunderstand the First Amendment, or willingly narrow your interpretation of it (which, thankfully, the courts do not stand with you). And you apparently do not understand either what I said, or what you are suggesting.
adestefan 13y ago
I'm sorry you're getting down voted to oblivion for expressing an unpopular opinion. It is a shame how far HN has fallen. Also, the 13 years was a spun up non-story. If found guilty he was probably only facing a fine.

by javert 13y ago

jakejake 13y ago

It's pathetic that they trumped up the offense so that writing in chalk would amount to almost the same amount of time as if he had robbed the bank.

nknighthb 13y ago

Strange, I'd previously been under the impression your username was intended to be ironic.

javert 13y ago
I'm glad that you got the reference, and it was never intended to be ironic. I always liked that character. Of course, I also liked Jean Valjean. Part of the genius of Hugo, and Romantic literature in general, is that you can have profoundly good characters on opposing sides.

vy8vWJlco 13y ago

30 days for chalk that washes off the first time it rains? Gum on the street is more disruptive IMHO.

ajross 13y ago

With chalk. He "wrote" on public property with chalk. Are you in favor of prosecuting people for "Lost Dog" signs stapled to telephone poles too? Good grief. Thankfully our courts have historically taken a rather broader view of the limits of political speech than you have. "Too stupid to deserve rights" indeed. That was just disgraceful, stop it.

ars 13y ago
Did he write on the sidewalk, or on the wall or entryway of the bank?
- icebraining 13y ago
  From the article: "(...) on the sidewalk outside branches of the Bank of America."

jessaustin 13y ago

Hahaha, your username is entertaining and apropos.

javert 13y ago
Thanks!

justin66 13y ago

The first amendment was created to protect the rights of, among others, pamphleteers. This was a genuinely destructive activity at times. This dude was using nondestructive chalk. No big deal, and certainly constitutionally protected.

javert 13y ago
> This was a genuinely destructive activity at times. I don't see why printing pamphlets on your own printing press would be destructive. On the other hand, this guy was defacing other peoples' property (the public's). Defacing other people's property is certainly not constitutionally protected, for any reason.
- justin66 13y ago
  > I don't see why printing pamphlets on your own printing press would be destructive. Pamphleteering involved posting bills in public spaces, using nail or glue to put up posters or pamphlets in the public square, etc. It was certainly a pain in the ass for the people who had to clean up afterward, which is why this being a living legal issue dating back a couple of hundred years. And the founders thought it was a process worthy of fundamental legal protection. As with many constitutional protections, attempts have been made to erode it by well meaning or not so well meaning government, but even in cities like New York it usually just takes a civil liberties lawsuit to make the more egregious restrictions go away. > On the other hand, this guy was defacing other peoples' property (the public's). There was no property damage and speech in public spaces is protected. > Defacing other people's property is certainly not constitutionally protected, for any reason. When interpreting the bill of rights there is a meaningful distinction between public and private property that you are apparently unaware of. This distinction affects a lot of things under the law, not just what we're talking about.
  - javert 13y ago
    I haven't seen anything in the Bill of Rights about nailing things up on public property. > interpreting the bill of rights there is a meaningful distinction between public and private property that you are apparently unaware of. That's because that distinction is not, as far as I know, actually in the Bill of Rights.

DanBC 13y ago

Why is prison an appropriate sentence for non-violent crime?

bobwaycott 13y ago

Writing with chalk on a public sidewalk is "graffiti and vandalism"? I see quite a few businesses write messages on the public sidewalks leading to and in front of their storefronts. They're never brought up on charges of graffiti and vandalism. This was not a case of graffiti and vandalism of public property, but of a private corporation not appreciating the chalker's sharing of constitutionally protected speech. Perhaps we can at least agree on the principle, if not the terms, that this was gross abuse of, not by, the justice system. Everyone deserves First Amendment rights. Whether one understands the limits of those rights is a separate matter entirely. I find much less to find fault with in the chalker than, say, a hate group protesting funerals. But even they deserve First Amendment rights.

javert 13y ago
Nobody deserves First Amendment rights if they undermine those very rights by making invalid and nonsensical arguments about them and thereby undermining the public's understanding of them. Nor do religious bigots who are, in fact, profoundly anti-rights. We give them rights because we don't want the government to have to judge who deserves what, which would swiftly lead to me not having rights. > chalker's sharing of constitutionally protected speech You only have a right to free speech if you don't infringe on other people's rights. Thus, you can't use other people's property, including public property. Under your logic, you could put a sign up on my house and it would be "constitutionally protected speech."
- bobwaycott 13y ago
  Your characterization of my logic, as you put it, is grossly flawed. Your house is not public property. I've said nothing in any way to suggest putting a sign on your private residence is at all protectable free speech or in any way homologous to chalking a sidewalk. You are fabricating an argument I did not make. In so doing, you appear to either fundamentally misunderstand the First Amendment, or willingly narrow your interpretation of it (which, thankfully, the courts do not stand with you). And you apparently do not understand either what I said, or what you are suggesting.

adestefan 13y ago

I'm sorry you're getting down voted to oblivion for expressing an unpopular opinion. It is a shame how far HN has fallen. Also, the 13 years was a spun up non-story. If found guilty he was probably only facing a fine.