4 ms·
I respect the jury's decision but have a had time swallowing that anyone who wants to should be able to systematically slander a business in chalk 13 times and
by gfodor 13y ago
I respect the jury's decision but have a had time swallowing that anyone who wants to should be able to systematically slander a business in chalk 13 times and it not be considered some sort of crime. Poor precedent. Should have gotten a slap on the wrist.
- jjoonathan 13y agoIANAL, but AFAIK Slander involves communicating a falsehood. "BoA stole $10T of lunch money from children in Africa" would be slander (outside of the context of this post and the fact that it is a clearly ridiculous assertion). "No Thanks, Big Banks" (a representative example of what the guy actually wrote) is not slander. The charges were for vandalism, which arguably has a place in political discourse and arguably doesn't even deserve a slap on the wrist.
- gfodor 13y agoFair enough on the slander point, but how does this not set a precedent for people to start spamming political messages all over sidewalks in front of Evil Corporation of The Month? The only real reasoning I could see is that perhaps just the fear of being sentence was deterrence enough.
- nknighthb 13y agoPersonally, I'd be thrilled to have such a precedent. Seriously. It's a sidewalk. When not covered in chalk, it's just a boring surface. Protests, political slogans, landscapes, ponies, shrines to $deity of your choice, ads for the competing coffee shop on the next street, I'll take it all.
- gfodor 13y agoLets break it down logically. I think most people would agree this guy should be found guilty if he had used spraypaint to deface sidewalks 13 times. Spraypaint, like chalk, is removable too, it just requires more effort and cost. Removing the chalk, according to BoA, cost a few thousand dollars. (Probably because they had to hire someone come with a power washer, and weren't going to ask their employees to do it.) I guess my question is, why is chalk different than spraypaint in the eyes of the law? Is it because the rain will wash it away, or because the relative cost to washing it away with a hose is low compared to more permanent media? What if there is no hose access to the sidewalk in an area where there is no rain for weeks at a time? Where is the line drawn?
- nknighthb 13y agoYour paint comparison is plainly erroneous. Paint poses practical safety and environmental problems and is therefore not comparable to chalk. The rest of your comment appears based on an equally faulty premise -- that I would think the messages need to be washed away (naturally or otherwise) at all. Why on earth would I invite massive use of chalk on sidewalks for virtually any purpose if I would be bothered by its presence? In my view, it was BoA's choice to waste their money on an overpriced erasure of a message they dislike. My opinion on the use of chalk on sidewalks changes not one whit whether they make that choice or not. Chalk messages could remain on sidewalks until universal thermodynamic equilibrium is achieved, I really couldn't care less.
- yardie 13y ago> Removing the chalk, according to BoA, cost a few thousand dollars. When I was a kid I used to wash cars for $8-10. A few thousand dollars? Pay 10 year old me a few hundred and I'd wash it every weekend. Forget the car washing business.
- jasonlotito 13y agoOther people have discussed and refuted your various arguments. I want to tackle something else. You are dismissing elements of the case as if they aren't important. > Lets break it down logically. Logic dictates that you look at the case at hand, not at all the possible permutations. It's not as if you can say simply that killing someone is a crime and deserves X punishment, regardless of the details, and driving over the speed limit isn't an instant ticket if seen by a cop. So, then you ask: > why is chalk different than spraypaint in the eyes of the law? First, because they are different. They aren't the same. Not all cases of vandalism are the same, and they shouldn't be treated the same. We see what happens in cases like that when people use zero-tolerance as an excuse to come down hard on someone who was clearly not doing anything harmful. > What if there is no hose access to the sidewalk in an area where there is no rain for weeks at a time? And what if it was raining at the time? The person drawing while the rain immediately washed it away. One could argue then that the act of vandalism still occurred in both cases. One just happened to happen while it rained.
- thret 13y agoI've no objections if people protest with inoffensive chalk messages on a regular basis. OTOH I do find yelling and sign waving pretty annoying.
- jlgreco 13y agoSeriously, I would much rather the nutters keep their head down and try some drawing then yell and spit in my face. Hell, it would probably be good for them.
- DanBC 13y agoSp what if they do? It's chalk. It wears off if you walk on it.
- bobwaycott 13y agoToo bad we don't actually have a popularly elected Evil Corporation of the Month against whom all citizens would chalk political messages on the sidewalks of the nation. The sidewalks would become so much more interesting and fun.
- gfodor 13y agoWell that's great, -3 downvotes just because I expressed a contrary opinion. Shameful.
- weego 13y agoa) slander is verbal, you were looking for libel and b) even then libel has to be able to be factually disproven. "No thanks, big banks." and "Shame on Bank of America.", two examples of what was written do not have issues to answer under libel law. So perhaps understand what you are responding to before decrying getting downvoted. It's hard to take an opinion seriously when it's making serious factual errors.
- gfodor 13y agoSomehow I don't think my mis-use of the word "slander" was the reason for the downvotes. It's an obvious "I disagree, fuck this person, downvoted" phenomenon.