California man faces 13 years in jail for scribbling anti-bank messages in chalk

[ZombieApocolypse]

The mans attorney is also prohibited from using the term(s) "First Amendment, free speech, free expression, public forum, expressive conduct, or political speech during the trial."



California man faces 13 years in jail for scribbling anti-bank messages in chalk ? RT USA

 

[Sfrandolph]

California, not surprised.

 

[ZombieApocolypse]

California, not surprised.

Curses, i meant to add in the op INB4 something along those lines

 

[BigMatt]

Well, to be fair, if we could claim the 1st Amendment for vandalism cases, they would all get off scott free.

 

[ZombieApocolypse]

Well, to be fair, if we could claim the 1st Amendment for vandalism cases, they would all get off scott free.

I understand he's being tried for vandalism ..... but is it still vandalism if the words could be so easily removed with something like, say, water?

 

[Classic]

If writing/drawing in chalk on pavement or sidewalks constitutes vandalism then this is a VERY unevenly enforced law.

 

[rambone]

So using chalk on a public sidewalk is "vandalism" now. Kids, beware.

Here's the perpetrator in the act.

Man faces 13 years in prison, $13K in fines for writing on city sidewalks with chalk | 10News

Chalking the plank: Judge won't allow bank protester to claim first amendment rights | San Diego Reader

 

[rambone]

"I wrote 'No thanks big banks,' I wrote 'Shame on Bank of America,'" he said.

"Always on city sidewalks, washable chalk, never crude messages, never vulgar, clearly topical," he said.


Local man's chalk protest could land him in jail

 

[BigMatt]

I understand he's being tried for vandalism ..... but is it still vandalism if the words could be so easily removed with something like, say, water?

This is the question that should be asked. Not whether or not he should be able to claim his 1st Amendment rights.

 

[CathyInBlue]

There is no way to read this case as anything other than attempting to silence political opposition with the force of the state. Whatever you think of the OWS movement, they have the right to voice their opinion in the public square. Just as the sounds of those voices, given a permanent aural presence would lead to rightful prosecutions under nuisance noise ordinances, had Olson used indelible spray paint, the application of these vandalism charges would be proper. But words once spoken dissipate naturally in the air, as is their nature, so to does sidewalk chalk dissipate in the rain.

These charges deserve to leave skid marks on the toilet bowl of the judiciary what brung `em.

 

[navarre1095]

“To learn who rules over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize” (Voltaire)

 

[BigMatt]

But words once spoken dissipate naturally in the air, as is their nature, so to does sidewalk chalk dissipate in the rain.

How quickly should words marked on the sidewalk dissipate before they are considered to be vandalism? Spray paint will fade and peel after a few years in the sun and rain. Marker paint will dissipate after a few months. Crayon will come off after a while.

What is the right time frame? A week? A month?...

 

[ViperJock]

The thing that bothers me is that the attorney is not able to mention the first amendment etc in the court. How is that constitutional? As far as vandalism goes, if someone changes something of mine against my will, I would consider it vandalism. If he wants to protest he should get a sandwich board and do it legally.

Incidentally, has anyone watched the show Continuum (on Netflix now) First few episodes very cliche but as it moves on it gets more interesting. --It has to do with this thread.

 

[BigMatt]

The thing that bothers me is that the attorney is not able to mention the first amendment etc in the court. How is that constitutional?

I think the thought process is that the First Amendment is no defense for vandalism. That is how I interpreted the article.

 

[CarmelHP]

I don't know about anyone else, but I'm very relieved to hear that California has so eradicated crime that they now have the time and resources to go after the pettiest of petty crimes.

 

[lashicoN]

What are chalk outlines made with?

Is "vandalism" permitted if it helps to solve crimes?

 

[shibumiseeker]

I understand he's being tried for vandalism ..... but is it still vandalism if the words could be so easily removed with something like, say, water?

Yes. How about someone soap your windows? Would you consider it vandalism? Washes right off with water, right?

Please don't think I am saying that his prosecution is anything by persecution, but it IS vandalism. I manage a nature preserve and deal with this crap all of the time and after you've spent hundreds of hours cleaning up after other people one tends to take a dim view of the "harmless" actions.

 

[rambone]

This is pretty standard all over the formerly free United States.

MotherJones has accumulated a list of at least 50 cases of people being imprisoned for coloring things with chalk. The vast majority were arrested in connection with drawing designs or messages on public streets or sidewalks.

Recent example:

RICHMOND, VA -- Susan Mortensen, a 29-year-old mom was arrested for allowing her four-year-old daughter to draw on rocks at a local park with sidewalk chalk. This month a judge sentenced her to 50 hours of community service helping to strip and repaint 200 boundary posts on a bridge. Mortensen told a local TV station that her daughter is now "very nervous around cops" and "very scared of chalk."

Chalk a Sidewalk, Go to Jail | Mother Jones

Another one:

NAPA, CA -- Amy Larson wanted people to investigate the collapse of Building 7 that fell at the World Trade Center under mysterious circumstances. She was concerned that Americans have "lost a lot of civil liberties since the 9/11 attacks." Ironically, she was subsequently arrested for spreading this message with sidewalk chalk.

Sidewalk chalking provokes police

 

[IndyDave1776]

I would think that a first amendment defense is extremely viable given that chalking sidewalks is only considered vandalism when the 'important people' don't like the message.

 

[CathyInBlue]

Soaping your windows inhibits your use of your property. Your windows are your property. For someone to soap your windows, even if it's in the discernible patterns of letters, words, and sentences of political speech, is a trespass. Even if the windows are in a public building, and are hence public property, it's a compelling public interest in the windows being clear and unobstructed. Otherwise, they would have put a wall there. Soaping them obscures the view, thus requiring the expenditure of labour to clean again.

There is no possible claim that scribbling political speech on a public sidewalk in chalk inhibits any possible use of that public property by any member of the public. If anyone chooses to expend labour and material to remove that sidewalk chalk political speech, that is merely yet another exercise of political speech, the removal of the political speech of another, after the author had finished placing it, and thus registering the converse political stance.

A soaped window is harder to see through. A chalked sidewalk is no more difficult to navigate.

And what of sidewalk art projects that feature forced perspective to such marvelous effect.