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.
Soaping your windows inhibits your use of your property.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Do cops still chalk tires to see if cars have been moved in the required time? Arrest those vandals...
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
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.
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.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.
I think the thought process is that the First Amendment is no defense for vandalism. That is how I interpreted the article.
Why not go for the direct analogy: "I hope someone writes with chalk on the public sidewalk in front of your house..."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.