Hacker News Reader

Comment by javert | Hacker News Reader

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).

View on HN

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.

Did he write on the sidewalk, or on the wall or entryway of the bank?

From the article: "(...) on the sidewalk outside branches of the Bank of America."

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.

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."

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.

I think you're making a bit much of my last sentence.

All you had to say was, "My logic actually doesn't reduce to that, because I think everybody has a right to dispose of public property as they wish, but not private property." (Or something like that. Is that what you think?)

I mean, when I said "Under your logic...," I'm just extending your argument in the obvious way, and expecting you to tell me how you extend it differently. I am not presuming to actually know exactly what and how you think, that would be ridiculous.

As for misinterpreting or narrowly interpreting the First Amendment, I don't see how you get that.

> I mean, when I said "Under your logic...," I'm just extending your argument in the obvious way...

Extending my comments to the point that I am allegedly suggesting disregarding private property laws egregiously to erect a sign at your private, personal residence and then call that constitutionally protected free speech is the obvious way?!

We have very different notions of obvious, friend. Your last sentence read as having very little to do with extending my argument in a way that would be obvious to other sensible citizens and, instead, extending it in a way that distorted its meaning entirely to shoe-horn it back into your preferred view of seeing protecting free speech in the public sphere as something that ought to be beholden to a others' definition of whether or not they approve of the message, allowing for legal punishment and incarceration for sharing one's views in a public way.

Can someone put a sign up on your house and it be constitutionally protected free speech? Nope. Can persons stand peaceably outside your house with a sign airing their grievances? Yep, absolutely. Can they write on the sidewalk or street in chalk to get your attention? I'm willing to bet they can, so long as they are not inciting violence or threatening you. You don't own the street or sidewalk. It is public space. And if you are going to abuse the justice system to apprehend and punish them, well, at least you're sticking to your principles. But I hope also that you call the authorities on any children in the neighborhood who might also be writing in chalk on the street. Or any businesses that might so abuse the public space as to write on sidewalks with chalk to grab the attention of consumers.

You called for jail time and a fine for writing in chalk on a sidewalk. You called it graffiti and vandalism. There was no destruction of public property. There was no private property damage, to my knowledge.

You further suggested that there ought to be some kind of litmus test for who deserves First Amendment protections. Thankfully, the founders were wiser than you and did not make our right to speak freely dependent upon passing a test that evaluates our entitlement to constitutional rights beyond that of being a citizen.

> extending it in a way that distorted its meaning entirely to shoe-horn it back into your preferred view

That's just nonsense. It's normal, in an intellectual debate, to say, "Doesn't your position equate to X?" and get a response. That's what I was doing. People can distinguish between that, and actually intentionally misrepresenting someone else's position to make them look bad or "win" the argument.

I restated the issue in simple terms, and I don't see why you didn't just respond to that directly. Again: I think the public has a right to determine how public property is disposed of. I guess you don't? Because writing messages badmouthing a business day after day on the local sidewalk is a public disturbance of public property (the sidewalk). I don't think this has anything whatsoever to do with free speech. It's a property issue.

> You further suggested that there ought to be some kind of litmus test for who deserves First Amendment protections.

I explicitly said the opposite of that in my very first comment on the issue.

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.

> 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.

> 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.

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.

> That's because that distinction is not, as far as I know, actually in the Bill of Rights.

It's a distinction made in the case law, even by strict textualists like Justice Scalia. It's not a weakness of the document that it doesn't spell everything out for you.

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

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.

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

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.

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

Hahaha, your username is entertaining and apropos.

Thanks!

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.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com