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

[cook4army]

The bank is claiming it cost them $6,000 to remove these messages.... What the heck did they use, Evian water?

 

[BigMatt]

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.

There is an assumption in there - that the sidewalks were public sidewalks. Some of the articles say that the sidewalks were public and some say that they were the bank's sidewalks.

There is a big difference IMO.

 

[shibumiseeker]

Soaping your windows inhibits your use of your property.

So does chalking on a private sidewalk, or as is often the case, a public sidewalk that a property owner is required to maintain.

The point of my post was in answer to the "what's the harm." The harm is that you don't have the right to deface other people's property or even public property, regardless of how much or little effort is involved in cleanup.

I am also going to reiterate because this point often gets lost in these little pedantic pissing matches: I felt the punishment in that case was far out of proportion to the vandalism, and is probably persecution rather than punishment.

 

[Rob377]

There is an assumption in there - that the sidewalks were public sidewalks. Some of the articles say that the sidewalks were public and some say that they were the bank's sidewalks.

There is a big difference IMO.

Not according to the vandalism statute in CA. There, it doesn't matter who's it was. If it's not yours, it's vandalism.

594. (a) Every person who maliciously commits any of the following
acts with respect to any real or personal property not his or her
own, in cases other than those specified by state law, is guilty of
vandalism:
(1) Defaces with graffiti or other inscribed material.
(2) Damages.
(3) Destroys.
Whenever a person violates this subdivision with respect to real
property, vehicles, signs, fixtures, furnishings, or property
belonging to any public entity, as defined by Section 811.2 of the
Government Code, or the federal government, it shall be a permissive
inference that the person neither owned the property nor had the
permission of the owner to deface, damage, or destroy the property.

 

[BigMatt]

Not according to the vandalism statute in CA. There, it doesn't matter who's it was. If it's not yours, it's vandalism.

OK, I said IMO which means "In my opinion".

I didn't try and paraphrase the California penal code, I was stating my opinion.

 

[z96Cobra]

Do cops still chalk tires to see if cars have been moved in the required time? Arrest those vandals...

 

[92ThoStro]

So does chalking on a private sidewalk, or as is often the case, a public sidewalk that a property owner is required to maintain.

The point of my post was in answer to the "what's the harm." The harm is that you don't have the right to deface other people's property or even public property, regardless of how much or little effort is involved in cleanup.

I am also going to reiterate because this point often gets lost in these little pedantic pissing matches: I felt the punishment in that case was far out of proportion to the vandalism, and is probably persecution rather than punishment.

I agree, the punishment does not fit the crime.
But it is vandalism and he needs to clean it up himself and be fined. Forget them charging him 600 bucks, that's ridiculous, let him clean it up himself. A good public shaming.
My family owned a store out in San Francisco and we were in charge of making sure there was no graffiti, or any marks whatsoever on the sidewalk and outside of our building from vandalism. We get fined if we don't clean it up or paint over it.
Chalk washing off in the rain is irrelevant, it doesn't rain every 10 minutes.
We even had to pay the city to repaint the old loading zone strip on our curb. And pay a big fee to get a 15 minute parking strip solely for our store.
If you ever drive down San Bruno you will see that the stores are all side by side with no parking lots for the most part. It's street, curb side parking. And it's cut-throat... had to go out countless times to make people move. And some of them get very angry. No matter how nice we were, when they were in our loading zone... cussing, rolling up their windows, etc.
We ended up hiring a security guard

 

[mrjarrell]

The judge in the case has issued a gag order to all parties. Guess this thread is dead in the water now. Clearly, this judge has issues with the 1st Amendment and speech in general. Here's hoping the defendant gets all this crap overturned on appeal, since he's being railroaded.

Judge Issues Gag Order In Trial Of Man Accused Of Writing Chalk Messages Outside BofA Branches

 

[lucky4034]

Do cops still chalk tires to see if cars have been moved in the required time? Arrest those vandals...

Thats an interesting thought!

 

[Rob377]

The judge in the case has issued a gag order to all parties. Guess this thread is dead in the water now. Clearly, this judge has issues with the 1st Amendment and speech in general. Here's hoping the defendant gets all this crap overturned on appeal, since he's being railroaded.

Judge Issues Gag Order In Trial Of Man Accused Of Writing Chalk Messages Outside BofA Branches

It won't, because the judge is legally correct. The 1st Amendment isn't a valid defense for defacing another's property.

 

[Westside]

After reading the article the judge seems to be "reasonable". The judge said he will not get 13 years in jail for it. It also appears that Bank of America kept harassing the police until they finally did something to get BOA off of their neck.

 

[Rob377]

After reading the article the judge seems to be "reasonable". The judge said he will not get 13 years in jail for it. It also appears that Bank of America kept harassing the police until they finally did something to get BOA off of their neck.

13 is the absolute max possible for 13 misdemeanor vandalism counts. CA allows consecutive sentencing. Will it happen? Not a chance. But the dramatization and hype gets people in a tizzy, and getting people in a tizzy is what gets those click through stats up.

 

[mrjarrell]

It won't, because the judge is legally correct. The 1st Amendment isn't a valid defense for defacing another's property.

The sidewalk was not BoA's property. It is public property in every municipality in the US. And he was engaging in protected speech, as we will find determined in the inevitable appeal. The judge is wrong. So are those who support his contention.

 

[Rob377]

The sidewalk was not BoA's property. It is public property in every municipality in the US. And he was engaging in protected speech, as we will find determined in the inevitable appeal. The judge is wrong. So are those who support his contention.

Nope. Read the statute. Read the caselaw on the 1st. Defacing property, public or private, is not protected speech.

Sidewalks are not public property either (in most cases) They belong to the landowner, and the municipality has an easement. Easement is not ownership.

 

[Dauvis]

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

I'm thinking to be able to make a first amendment argument, the lawyer will have to make arguments that would be getting uncomfortably close to jury nullification. The judge can't have the jury knowing their rights can he?

 

[rambone]

Prosecutors are seeking a life-sentence for the guy who vandalized this street.

 

[mrjarrell]

He's been acquitted on all charges. Suck it speech nazi's! A win for for activists and the Bill of Rights.

LA Times

 

[CathyInBlue]

Booya! Suck it, authoritarians! Gag on your own gag orders!

 

[Rob377]

I kinda hope someone spreads a bunch of anti-anarchy pamphlets on your lawn. Most people would consider that littering, but it's not really because first amendment.

 

[rambone]

I kinda hope someone spreads a bunch of anti-anarchy pamphlets on your lawn. Most people would consider that littering, but it's not really because first amendment.

Why not go for the direct analogy: "I hope someone writes with chalk on the public sidewalk in front of your house..."