Bikes Against Bush Creator Busted 1159
An anonymous reader writes "Joshua Kinberg, creator of Bikes Against Bush, was arrested in NYC for vandalism while being interviewed by MSNBC. Kinberg's website describes his project as 'using a Wireless Internet-enabled bicycle outfitted with a custom-designed printing device, the Bikes Against Bush bicycle can print text messages sent from web users directly onto the streets of Manhattan in water-soluble chalk". Both Wired and Popular Science have done stories on Kinberg's work." Update: 08/30 01:30 GMT by J : Mr. Kinberg has been released; he describes his arrest and brief stay behind bars on this MSNBC blog.
Re:1st admentment (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Should have known (Score:5, Informative)
Re:1st admentment (Score:5, Informative)
This works, somewhat... (Score:2, Informative)
It seems down... (Score:4, Informative)
Interesting that he's being charged with defacement of public property. We'll see how long it takes to release him. His goal of printing messages during the republican convention may not happen. Was that intentional on the superiors part?
Cool idea, but if it was widespread, i think i would agree that its defacement. If there were messages everywhere on the ground, would you still consider it benign? As it is though, one person on one bike, i don't think it's defacement.
What to me is really insulting is that companies can get away with printing their messages in the sky via those cloud making airplanes. When superbowl was here in san diego, they wrote heineken in the atmosphere to be read at least 20 square miles away from the stadium. I would rather not see my beautiful southern californian sky poluted by such nonsense that nobody can erase. At least this fellow uses chalk that can be removed pretty easily.
Re:Should have known (Score:5, Informative)
Get'cher red hot video, right here! (Score:4, Informative)
Request to NYC Slashdotters (Score:5, Informative)
http://www.letspaniclater.com/ [letspaniclater.com]
http://www.rncnotwelcome.org/ [rncnotwelcome.org]
http://www.counterconvention.org/ [counterconvention.org]
Supreme court would find no probable cause (Score:5, Informative)
And GULLIFORD v PIERCE COUNTY [findlaw.com]
He should be released ASAP, and the state should pay for his pains, plus reimburse the lost opportunity costs.
(All this said - i believe the first amendment protectes those who disagree with protected speech and their right to "clean up the mess" personally i prefer to collect litter on a stick - and have been arrested for that so - it cuts both ways.
AIK
Re:I would have busted him, too... (Score:2, Informative)
The NYC police give chalk to kids as part of the anti-grafitti and neighborhood policing initiatives. Thousands of kids write cute messages over thousands of feet of sidewalk.
The only difference here is that Josh's message is political and embarassing to NYC.
It's a clear supression of free speech, with a convenient excuse. The Republicans are fascists.
Re:They will rule us all.... (Score:2, Informative)
Re:I would have busted him, too... (Score:5, Informative)
That's really my only option (that, and I'm not an asshole), because drawing on a sidewalk with chalk was declared not to be vandalism 100 years ago.
That's why the sidewalk artists work in the medium and chalk explicitly for the purpose is sold throughout NYC.
It's perfectly legal to track dirt onto my sidewalk too, because I can just wash it off.
KFG
They're busting cyclists all over the place (Score:1, Informative)
I'm listening to the stream at
http://liveradio.indymedia.org:8002/rnc2004-l
That's because... (Score:3, Informative)
He hasn't been charged (Score:5, Informative)
Logic is your friend. So are facts. (Score:4, Informative)
The question remains: the most protected speech is political speech. The next most protected speech is artistic speech. Both have limitations which were not broken here nor are broken by children everyday. The less protected speech in chalking is commercial speech and arrests have been made for it. So, by logic, if we can arrest or punish for "vandalism" for the highest protected speech, and we can arrest or punish for the lowest protected speech, then we should logically also arrest and punish for the middle of the protected speech - the child artiste drawing with equally non-permanent chalk. QED.
Re:Well... (Score:1, Informative)
Follow the Indymedia link. Josh's friends are posting updates there. They didn't give him a reason, and they confiscated his bike.
Re:Should have known (Score:5, Informative)
New York State penal code:
S 145.30 Unlawfully posting advertisements.
1. A person is guilty of unlawfully posting advertisements when,
having no right to do so nor any reasonable ground to believe that he
has such right, he posts, paints or otherwise affixes to the property of
another person any advertisement, poster, notice or other matter
designed to benefit a person other than the owner of the property.
2. Where such matter consists of a commercial advertisement, it shall
be presumed that the vendor of the specified product, service or
entertainment is a person who placed such advertisement or caused it to
be placed upon the property.
Unlawfully posting advertisements is a violation.
New York City:
10-117. Defacement of property, possession, sale and display of aerosol spray paint cans, [and] broad tipped markers and etching acid prohibited in certain instances.
a. No person shall write, paint or draw any inscription, figure or mark of any type on any public or private building or other structure or any other real or personal property owned, operated or maintained by a public benefit corporation, the city of New York or any agency or instrumentality thereof or by any person, firm, or corporation, or any personal property maintained
on a city street or other city-owned property pursuant to a franchise, concession or revocable consent granted by the city, unless the express permission of the owner or operator of the property has been obtained.
This is more strict than state law on graffiti, which requires intent to damage.
S 145.60 Making graffiti.
1. For purposes of this section, the term "graffiti" shall mean the
etching, painting, covering, drawing upon or otherwise placing of a mark
upon public or private property with intent to damage such property.
2. No person shall make graffiti of any type on any building, public
or private, or any other property real or personal owned by any person,
firm or corporation or any public agency or instrumentality, without theexpress permission of the owner or operator of said property.
Making graffiti is a class A misdemeanor.
And to everyone who talks about kids drawing hopscotch squares around, I say it's apples and oranges. While kids might be technically in violation for drawing squares by their home, it's altogether different to spray stuff all over public thoroughfares by an automated graffiti bicycle, whether it's painting hopscotch squares, advertisements, gang tags, or political speech.
Re:Should have known see it for yourself (Score:2, Informative)
wired has a video:
http://www.wired.com/news/mediaplayer/0,2108,6441
Damn it. (Score:2, Informative)
It is playing word games when you say that the top 1/4 pay 73% of all taxes.
"aressted perfectly legally, for vandalism"? (Score:5, Informative)
No. The fact is that he's kept in custody for hours without being told why, nor being charged for anything.
It seems that nobody including the sergeant himself who arrested this guy was sure about the reason for this very arrest. The only thing I can see here is that the sergeant was told by somebody to arrest him for some reason that is not known to us at the moment.
Maybe it was vandalism indeed, maybe not. But if it was the case, they could have told the guy that he was arrested because of vandalism. Anyway here's the article, in case you're too lazy:
When Kinberg showed the police sergeant how the bicycle used a non-permanent spray chalk, the sergeant seemed to agree that it wasn't defacement, at which point Kinberg asked, "am I free to go?" After conferring about it, officers decided to call superiors, then came back moments later to place Kinberg under arrest and confiscate the bicycle.
Kinberg cooperated fully with the officers as he was being handcuffed, only asking, "can I ask what I'm being arrested for?" to which no one provided an answer. As of 11:00 PM Saturday evening, he was still in custody without being charged with anything.
Re:I would have busted him, too... (Score:3, Informative)
It washes off. It takes 15-30 days to biodegrade.
To quote from the website:
The scary bit is that he hasn't been charged yet.Re:habeous corpus? (Score:5, Informative)
Additionally, once you are charged I believe the law says that you must be arraigned within 24 hours or the charges could be invalidated. But I know many judges who don't ever take notice of that.
If you are a big enough threat to the standing powers or if you annoy them enough, they will find ways to get you. When has the Constititution ever prevented the government our from going after citizens? You must be new around here...
Anthony
Re:What was he charged with? (Score:5, Informative)
According to this [taxfoundation.org], you're incorrect. Bush's deficit as percentage of GDP in FY2004 is 2.7%, whereas during the Clintion years it averaged 0.1%.
In some cases [cnn.com], Halliburton was the only bidder. According to the Pentagon, taking other bids "would have been a wasteful duplication".
Re:Give it to slashdot to (Score:1, Informative)
Re:Get'cher red hot video, right here! (Score:2, Informative)
Com'on, moderators. There are only TEN moderating options, and most of them are easily understandable for a nine-year-old. Consulting a dictionary for the remaining few wouldn't take more than a minute out of your life, and once you know the definition you're set!
LIbertarian Socialism (Score:5, Informative)
I'm not on either side. I'm against the Dems and the Reps. But I'm against the Reps more, because I view them as a slightly greater threat to liberty and justice than the Dems.
how can a libertarian be a socialist? lib == system runs wild doing whatever. soc == people in dc run wild making the system do whatever
This is a common misconception. Look up Libertarian Socialism [wikipedia.org] in Wiki. Socialism is not equivalent to totalitarianism. Socialism is the principle that the workers should control the means of production, in particular, and that society should be organized to provide for the common good, in general. Historically, this idea has typically been implemented through government control of the means of production and various forms of statist or authoritarian socialism, which in my view is even worse than capitalism, being simply a form of totalitarianism.
Libertarian socialists believe that society should be organized to provide for the common good from the bottom up, rather than the usual top-down approach of big government and mega corporations. I support small collectives and cooperateves, and am against any form of large organization or concentration of power.
Re:Supreme court would find no probable cause (Score:4, Informative)
The point is that [Hill] is a Supreme Court precedent used by others to estimate the bar with respect to protected anti-establishment speech.
Hill is binding precedent in NY. Hands Down.
I'm fairly certain that chalking the sidewalk in NY has a long tradition of being acceptable speech. I oppose litter, signs, handbills even, but chalking the sidewalk takes care of itself at no cost to anyone, and it is relatively unobtrusive - less than erected campaign signs for example. I hope the arrest people for stapling BUSH '04 signs to telephone poles.
But Thanks for the informed reply - you should be modded up.
AIK
Re:What was he charged with? (Score:5, Informative)
Democrats kept protestors in a cage [vulnwatch.org] called the "Free-Speech Zone" during the DNC. The RNC isn't limiting free speech to a cage.
Republicans were allowed no such convenience since anti-Republican protestors claimed a law prohibits such caging of dissenters. I bet they'd use it if they could. Having all your vocal opposition locked up in a barbed wire cage makes it much less of an annoyance.
Interestingly, google searches of both the web and the news didn't provide any immediate proof that the RNC can't use the cages, or that DNC organizers apparently violated the law that prevents the RNC from using cages. This [cnn.com] is the only reference to the issue I found, and it leaves out a lot of info, but it's worth a read. And, anyone in NYC can confirm that, indeed, there are no cages in use as there were at the DNC. At the RNC protesters mostly go wherever they want except for some excluded areas, where at the DNC protestors had to stay in a small caged area. A "free speech zone."
Moreover, the relative ugliness and chaos of the RNC protestors are helping Bush get re-elected, IMHO. When footage of what the "anti-Bush" nuts are shown on the nightly news in middle America, those swing states are more likely to go Bush because they tend to value niceness and fear chaos. Of course, we know the stuff that will be shown don't represent the majority of the anti-Bush people, but when Ma and Pa Jones see the clip I saw last night of the guy holding the Kerry sign punch the Bush-sign guy in the face, they're going to associate Kerry with these nuts, and it will hurt him in the campaign.
So maybe the RNC is glad they're not allowed to cage protestors, so the protestors can run wild and the wildest of them will be on the news holding a Kerry sign while acting like a nincompoop. Hmmm, are they that smart?
This is pretty typical. (Score:3, Informative)
Not always of course, but much of the time (comparing numbers arrested against numbers inidicted and then convicted.)
Americans say they're for freedom of speech, but anytime a large, public act of communication takes place (mainly demonstrations for this point, but the implications are similar for pirate radio imo), there's always a government entity duly empowered to curb that expression, so that it doesn't have quite so strong the impact its creators put into it. For example, the FCC, appointed by the Executive, and the police and FBI, appointed by that jurisdiction's executive, or, in some cases, elected by the public (yet still a single human with much power over many.)
It's the imperfect, political humans controlling those speech-altering government entities who have the power, here, not the citizens. Too much power in the hands of too few. The U.S. is no longer a good model of a participative democracy. Look toward northern Europe for better examples of directly-involved citizens.
Re:Supreme court would find no probable cause (Score:1, Informative)
Re:What was he charged with? (Score:5, Informative)
Actually, the cage (which I agree, was complete bullshit) was for protesters who wanted to be right next to the Fleet Center. I took a walk through there on Wednesday morning, and aside from the banners hung on the walls, the only person protesting was a guy yelling into a microphone that there wasn't enough Jesus in our government, we were all going to Hell, and it was all the fault of the Jews.
There were protesters freely gathered on the Common, playing music, chanting and selling stuff, as well a cool demonstration of how to turn a VW to run on biodiesel. Mind you, there weren't many people there.
My take on the subject is that while lots of those folks prefer Nader or one of that crowd to win, they see that Kerry is a more realistic option this time. The results of Nader votes in 2000 did a lot to kill "I'll vote for who is I think is best in a vacuum, rather than settle for who's best realistically" thinking.
Re:The question is: (Score:3, Informative)
You must be new here to expect popular Slashdot opinion to be otherwise...
Re:Should have known (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Supreme court would find no probable cause (Score:4, Informative)
In this particular case, they arrested the guy. They didn't tell him what they were arresting him for. He hasn't been charged with anything. The "obvious" thing he was doing wasn't illegal. The only inference that can be made was that he was arrested for
The first amendment states that the government can
Additionally, your perception of the purpose of the Constitution and its contents is incorrect. The purpose of the Constution is not to enumerate a limited set of "rights" that citizens have. Its purpose is to list what the government can
Re:Supreme court would find no probable cause (Score:3, Informative)
48 hours (Score:2, Informative)
Re:How about no Political Posts on Slashdot this y (Score:5, Informative)
First, let me state where I'm coming from. I was arrested at the Critical Mass bike ride on Friday night, and spent most of Saturday in a cell diagonally across from Josh Kinsberg. I am an active EMT (and sysadmin) here in NYC, and was present to provide medical support, not to break laws.
#1 - The arrest was for a violation - that's not even a misdemeanor. It's like getting a jaywalking or speeding ticket. People are almost NEVER arrested for violations in NYC - they receive a summons, they're not handcuffed and thrown in jail.
#2 - On 8/28/04, at 10:10AM, at Pier 57 in NYC (temporary holding cells for arrestees this weekend), Patrol Officer Hugo Dominguez said to an arrestee words to the effect that arresting for a violation was highly unusual, but "some people, not myself" thought it was a good way to keep protestors off of the streets for a few days. Giving different punishments based on someone's political beliefs is not only immoral but illegal - see here [villagevoice.com]
for info on the NYPD settling a similar lawsuit out of court a few years ago.
#3 - Critical Mass takes place in the exact same way every month in NYC, and has for three years. The police have wished me a happy ride in the past. Our behavior was no different, but this time over 150 people were arrested. This, along with numerous statements by the police (the item above was only one example) indicated that arrests this weekend were political in nature.
#3 - It's quite common for the police to arrest people during protests without regard to whether they've broken the law or not. Take a look at any major protest (25000+ people) that had arrests in the past few years - the conviction rates are incredibly low, even accounting for people pleading guilty to minor charges in exchange for time served. During this weekend, people were arrested for walking to their home on the same block as a protest.
In short, people ARE arrested for political reasons and not for breaking the law, and even they ARE breaking a minor law for political reasons (such as jaywalking, or drawing in chalk on the street), they are arrested even when someone else arrested for the same crime would get a summons.
Folks who have questions, trolls, etc. about my arrest situation can reply to this post.
NY Post Slant (Score:2, Informative)
"A 35-year-old man was arrested for using a convoluted spray-paint mechanism to deface city streets.
Riding a bike and carrying a laptop computer that was programmed to propel spray-paint on the street, Joshua Kinsberg inked the words "America is a free-speech zone" around downtown.
He was arrested for criminal mischief. "
No where does it say anything about it being water soluble chalk, which I think bascially dictates/spears the legality of what he is doing. When someone says "spray paint", I believe most people would simply imagine permanent spay paint... not chalk. That slant takes him from grey area activist to black ink vandal.
Re:I love correcting the idiotic remarks of the le (Score:4, Informative)
Yes, they do. Under the Geneva Conventions enemy combatants (by which one means folks openly identified as members of an armed, hierarchical force) are to be treated as prisoners of war and as such are e.g. not to be placed in naked pyramids and led around in leashes.
Jose Padilla and the Shoe Bomber are classified as enemy combatants because they are associated with an entity we declared war on.
You mean al-Qaida? This is a murky area, because al-Qaida isn't a national entity and could not sign the conventions even had they wanted to. Likely the legal situation is that they can be treated as members of a criminal conspiracy; even such people have the rights of accused criminals.
Because they did not identify themselves with a uniform, they have no rights, not even under the Geneva Convention
I think you mean "unlawful combatants" [wikipedia.org] rather than "enemy combatants". However, even those who do not wear uniform have rights; under Article 4 they are to be treated as "protected persons", and if they have e.g. committed murder are to be tried and prosecuted appropriately. By the way, it is not a slam-dunk that the Taliban should not be considered lawful combatants; they were hierarchical and organised and had as distinctive "uniforms" as certain U.S. special forces and snipers had. Then there is also the argument that they should be considered members of a - lawful - national popular resistance movement, which have recognised rights under the conventions.
In any case, under the Conventions, the status of prisioners must be determined by "competent tribunals", not arbitrary decree of the belligerent power.
Neither is Iraq, so we don't have to obey the GC there either.
I believe that Iraq ratified the Geneva Conventions on 14 February 1956.
In effect, they are like captured spies, and captured spies have no rights, not even under the GC.
GCIV Article 5, even a spy or saboteur shall be "treated with humanity and, in case of trial, shall not be deprived of the rights of fair and regular trial".
The Gitmo detainees are all enemy combatants and prisoners of war. They have no rights, not even under the GC. (See above).
Simply not true. (see above). POW's have rights. Civilans in occupied territories have rights, and all prisoners are to be treated humanely. From what we've seen and heard, this is not the case in U.S. prison camps.
The Patriot Act doesn't override the need for warrants. Police and FBI still have to obtain them
The Patriot Act [wikipedia.org]: allows law-enforcement in ordinary criminal cases to get a warrant to track which websites a person visits and collect general information about the emails a person sends and receives. Law-enforcement doesn't have to prove the need; the judge only has to determine that law-enforcement has "certified" that this relates to an ongoing investigation. In other words, the judge cannot reject an application based on the merits.
In plain English, the warrant process has become a rubber stamp and the judge has no authority to refuse. That's not what is meant by requiring a warrant; we do NOT do the same against organised crime.
The city is allowed to prevent people from "peacebly" assembling, where such assembly isn't peaceful and interferes with other's rights.
It appears to have been peaceful, and if the rights of 200,000+ to assemble and protest can be overridden by the right of 10 people to walk their dogs in a public park, then the First Amendment is hollowed out.