Hacker News Reader

Comment by dspillett | Hacker News Reader

No would be my quick reaction, it makes no sense and if it was then many other things that obviously aren't would be considered trespass too.

You probably have a legitimate claim to call it vandalism though. Easily repaired vandalism (just turn the projector off) but deliberate defacement all the same.

View on HN

I came here to say the same thing, trespass law appears to be the wrong angle and vandalism would be a better starting point.

Vandalism law shouldn't even care if the cost to repair the damage is zero. With regular vandalism offering to clean and repair the damage might convince the victim to not press changes, but it's not a get out of jail free card, they can still press charges.

Also, I assume damage to reputation before the vandalism was 'repaired' can be taken into account under current law.

But if we take into account damage to reputation aren't we getting dangerously close to infringing on free speech / freedom of the press?

If the projected accusations are true, then the damage to reputation is really coming from the person's own actions being widely communicated. Right to control property is one thing, but we have no right to control what is widely known about our actions.

But we do have the right to control the medium. You may print facts in your paper, but that gives you no right to burn them into my lawn, or soap them onto my windows, and by extension, use my private property in any way to broadcast them.

No you wouldn't.

> action involving deliberate destruction of or damage to public or private property.

It is neither damage nor destruction unless you use a nearly incomprehensible definition of either word.

You might be able to call it disturbing the peace but that's criminal and not civil so removes some ability to seek redress from the building owner.

Vandalism includes defacement too, even if the defacement is fully reversible (such as spray-painting cleanable surfaces).

According to Wikipedia, throwing shoes over powerlines already counts as vandalism (though I wouldn't mind a citation on that). If throwing shoes over powerlines (which anyone can agree is fully reversible) then you should be able to argue that projecting light is vandalism too.

Actually, projecting light is worse, is't not actually possible for the target can clean up the defacement, short of forcing you to turn the projector off.

Spray paint is destructive, especially if the surface underneath is painted and removal of spray paint removes that paint as well.

I have no idea if shoes over power lines is actually vandalism or not, I'm willing it is in some areas (Los Angeles? NYC?) and not in others (Duluth? Fargo?).

If I smear insults on your shopfront window with a whiteboard marker, is that not vandalism? It leaves no trace and takes only a minute to remove, no special equipment required.

I think anything that requires cleaning is legally classified as destructive.

What if I clean insults onto the side of your dirty car?

Also known as https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reverse_graffiti

No, vandalism requires actual physical damage of some sort.

The article is essentially the legal reasoning from the Nevada Court of Appeal - some fairly experienced legal minds examining the situation (in this case, via an appeal).

They're fairly clear in how they examine the situation and that no accepted definition of trespass applies and suggest some recourse to 'victims' who could, rather than incur huge legal fees, simply set their own competing projector to overcome the undesired images. An example of appeal judges being fairly pragmatic and laying a foundation for lawyers handling future cases to suggest better resolutions than expensive litigation - if only they'd read appeal court decisions /and remember them/.

However, they do also suggest there is a case to consider the situation a nuisance (s.4) and take action that way.

Given they make no mention of vandalism as an avenue, it seems quite evident the experienced legal experts suggest the situation is one of nuisance and should be handled as that if resorting to law.

Why should anyone on HN argue with a qualified legal opinion by suggesting alternative legal strategies?

Because they disagree with that legal opinion? I argue against the Citizens United decision constantly and that decision came down from arguably the most knowledgeable and important legal minds of today.

What specifically did you find problematic in the Citizens United decision?

Vandalism requires physical damage? So if I draw a vulgar cartoon on the side of a church in chalk its not vandalism?

You're using the word in a different sense than the person you're responding to. They're talking about the standard for charging someone for a criminal act.

Possibly not, but you would be in violation of trespass, which is somewhat ironic given the article's failure to prevail on a trespass claim.

That still results in a physical change to the building, even if it is only temporary (or not, if the building material is unusually porous).

The test that I remember seeing applied in the past concerns "intention distruction or defacement". As I understand it, alterations (graffiti, breaking a window, removing ornamentation, etc.) that alters the physical object or space can apply.

Well, it depends on where you are.

As far as I know, where I have lived most(Western Australia) it is not considered vandalism.

This is the third result on Google for "vandalism chalk"(though it seems to have some mixed messages):

https://itsartlaw.com/2013/09/02/california-court-rules-that...

I agree with your characterization of vandalism, but to

> Why should anyone on HN argue with a qualified legal opinion by suggesting alternative legal strategies?

there are a long list of reasons why we might want to:

- some of us have qualified legal opinions of our own

- it's a discussion site

- the victims here employed a poor legal strategy, as nuisance claims were obviously more likely to succeed than trespass claims, so it isn't like there wasn't room for improvement upon the actual legal strategy

- because even lay-people may be right on legal matters (though they rarely tend to be)

I'm sure there are many, many more reasons why, but off the top of my head, those will do. The idea that we shouldn't have free reign to discuss things we don't have expert knowledge of would, if put in action, eliminate the very purpose of forums like HN.

The OP lists a specific legal reasoning arguing that it could/should be forbidden, but under nuisanse laws instead of trespass laws - however, they explicitly made a claim only in respect of the trespass laws.

The specific precedent it cites is when actual matter entered somebody else's property, like excessive smoke. Light isn't matter. Projecting something onto someones property isn't all that different from shouting next to it. We have specific laws for when loud sound leaks into other peoples property, so we should probably have specific laws for light.

I got the impression that at least they (Nevada) don't have specific laws for loud soud entering property; but loud sound, smells, etc entering property would all be treated similarly as a general nuisance, so this light projection would already be covered by that - if only the complaint asked for redress about that instead of trespass.

The full opinion in the article goes on to explain that it would be more appropriate to bring the case under nuisance laws, rather than trespass, or indeed vandalism.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com