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.
I would have busted him, too... (Score:5, Insightful)
The question is: (Score:5, Insightful)
I wonder if . . . (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Can't say I agree... (Score:4, Insightful)
Latte sit-in for partial-birth abortion anyone?
vandalism charge without intent to damage? (Score:3, Insightful)
What was he charged with? (Score:5, Insightful)
I think it's safe to say that if being inconvenient or embarassing to Republicans during the Convention was a crime, that's what his charge would have been. As it is, they'll just have to hold him for a while.
Shameful the level some officials will stoop to silence dissent.
Fine line (Score:4, Insightful)
I also have a different attitude in general towards what other people would call vandalism. I've been through the Bronx which has its fair share of "paintings" on walls (most of which is not environmentally friendly like what the biker is using), and I don't call it vandalism but I call it art. Most of these paintings are not banal expression like "fuck you" but rather creative expression and political/social commentary.... much like what Mr. Kinberg is doing.
Re:That's what your founding fathers fought for (Score:1, Insightful)
Re: I would have busted him, too... (Score:4, Insightful)
> IANAL, but writing stuff all over the sidewalk (over an extended area) - even in chalk - has to be against some local laws.
I wonder how often they bust schoolgirls for drawing hopscotch guides on public sidewalks.
err, yeah. (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:I would have busted him, too... (Score:2, Insightful)
Furthermore campuses *allow* that to happen. There's scrawlings for clubs and whatnot (even LAN parties sometimes) all over the sidewalks at my school (a state university) but it's allowed, and you may be required to ask for permission somewhere before you do it.
OTOH... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:I would have busted him, too... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:I would have busted him, too... (Score:5, Insightful)
By natural erosion, or about 2 minutes with a hose.
. .
Yeah, that's why they arrest all of those sidewalk artists and kids playing hopscotch who aren't engaging in political speech.
KFG
Re:1st admentment (Score:3, Insightful)
But he wasn't vandalising anything. He was demostrating how his device worked. The police busted him and didn't give him a reason ether. Now if they picked him up while rolling around NYC they would have had a case.
The clear reason why they busted him is because the repbulican convention is coming to town and this is one more protester off the street. This guy clearly got the shaft in my option. I don't agree with his politics but I don't agree with locking his ass up because of them.
Re:I would have busted him, too... (Score:5, Insightful)
A buddy of mine got repeatedly hastled by the cops at Auburn for chaking a few years back.
What about chalking a building? Sure it will wash off in a few weeks...
What about a new marketing method? Coke buys a truck that chalks up everything in sight, but it will wash off, no worries.
IBM got in trouble for hiring a marketing group that spray painted pro linux motos on the sidewalks in boston. They got busted and had to clean the stuff up.
Better arrest them children then... (Score:3, Insightful)
No, really? We shouldn't arrest the kids? Shouldn't the law apply equally?
This person did no permanent damage to the public environment. He was not trespassing on private property. His message was protected free speech. Weighing all this, he should not have been arrested. I hope he makes a federal case out of the arrest, because even in a pro-Bush climate he'd likely win.
And before anyone asks, I'd have the same opinion if the messages were pro-Bush, pro-Kerry, pro-Nader, or anti-any-of-the-above. Free speech need not be popular to be permitted! In point of opinion, the least popular speech should be afforded the most protection.
Printer Jam (Score:1, Insightful)
Re: I would have busted him, too... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Can't say I agree... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Hmmm (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:As usual: RTFA (Score:5, Insightful)
Excellent point, just because the law forbids something doesn't mean the law should forbid it. When the Indians protested against the British it was illegal, but nobody would dare claim their cause was unjust. Sometimes the right thing to do is to break the law.
Re:Funny enough, I was planning on voting for Kerr (Score:5, Insightful)
If you don't like either candidate or think they're too close to each other politically, vote for someone you do like. That will send a real message, not some sort of knee-jerk reaction to the fact that--gasp--some people express themselves in ways you don't like.
So unless Teresa Heinz personally gives me a blowjob
Right, everyone else is being immature.
Re:Can't say I agree... (Score:0, Insightful)
No, you still have the freedom to buy a mexican-made SUV from a US company or a us-made SUV from a japanese company. You can use that choice to vote with your dollar.
Re:What was he charged with? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Funny enough, I was planning on voting for Kerr (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:What was he charged with? (Score:3, Insightful)
There are still thousands (tens of thousands?, hundreds of thousands?) of protesters in NYC whining about everything under the sun.
This was on jerkoff that got busted for vandalism. Maybe it doesn't meet the standard, maybe it does, let that come out in the general trial. There are still tons of people protesting around town. Maybe they won't paint stuff on the streets so they don't have to all go to jail.
We still allow political protests like we still allow idiots to post crap on slashdot, but apparently painting streets with semi-permanet chalk MAY be over the line. Carry a sign, use a bull horn, hand out pamplets if you don't want trouble.
Re:I would have busted him, too... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Way too far back (Score:3, Insightful)
nothing wrong but a higher up party wonk told him
to arrest him anyway.
Re:I wonder if . . . (Score:5, Insightful)
Only if it was followed by, "...bring them home."
Re:Slashdot lawyers (Score:1, Insightful)
The democrats didn't decide to rack up histories biggest deficit to bomb some random third party country and get americans killed there instead of spending the resources going after the terrorists who used biological weapons(anthrax) to kill americans.
Pretty big difference.
If it makes you guys feel any better... (Score:3, Insightful)
Neither of those things points to anything but embarrasing media coverage--coupled with the triviality of the actual events, and the fact that he was at an interview talking to Ron Reagan--well, I can't help but think that we'll be hearing more about this. If not, then there probably *is* some sort of 'Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy'. We'll see.
Re:What was he charged with? (Score:4, Insightful)
That's easy:
The DNC was held in Boston, a largely Democratic city.
The RNC was held in New York, a largely Democratic city.
The Republicans are the ones currently in power, and in all three branches of government no less. They're the ones who have "done to us lately".
If Democratic party members held the White House and Senate, and the DNC had been held in a Republican stronghold,with the date pushed back to try and take political advantage of the upcoming anniversary of a national tragedy that happened there, you would probably see a similar sized protest.
Nice to see the NYPD doesn't have enough to do (Score:4, Insightful)
Whoever went NYPD Blue on this guy should have thought a little. I have seen more offensive and more permanent "Public Art" in the City & nothing was done. This could easily blow up in their faces--persecuting someone who was conscientious enough to choose an instantly reomovable media to express tame political views in. They should have at least just let the guy off with a warning. Great--not even a sergeant seems to know the law well enough, but they still arrest him.
You'd lose the bet. (Score:5, Insightful)
So there you have it: my unbiassed bias. I believe it should be perfectly legal for this fellow, the children, or even Microsft to use chalk to display speech. The courts, however, do not agree. As I am a creature of law, more than I am a libertarian, I stick by the court - free speech must be protected and some speech more than others. Commercial and functional speech is at the bottom of the heap, but that's not my doing.
Point is, and your barb doesn't address it. If the highest form of speech is reason for punishment, and the lowest form is reason for punishment (as you cite), then should not the middle protected speech be reason for punishment as well? Should we not therefore arrest those kids? Hopefully, you recognize the difference and your own implied bias or will you just ignore the logic and move on?
Time, place and manner regulations are lawful (Score:2, Insightful)
So long as the government - in this case, NYC - does not regulate content, it can regulate the time, place, and manner of expression. The case law is well-settled on this, yet every time some radical group "protests" in some unlawful manner (again, T, P, & M) by shutting down a street or trespassing and hanging a banner on some building, they scream "First Amendment."
This is utter nonsense. The funny part is these groups almost always consult with First Amendment attorneys prior to their actions, so they know good and well that their conduct is illegal. Yet they still screech like scalded hogs when they get arrested for breaking the law. I say, great, carry the law breakers away in shackles. Most of the time, that's all part of the act, as in, "Look at me! I am being carted away by The Man for protesting!"
No you aren't idiot, and you know it. But it makes for good political theater.
Re:What was he charged with? (Score:5, Insightful)
Don't forget Clinton and Bosnia.
Doesn't compare to Iraq.
Don't forget Clinton and the DMCA.
Doesn't compare to the Patriot Act
Don't forget Clinton and some of the tax breaks passed during his time in office.
Doesn't compare to the deficit we're running now OR a war that is dumping $$$ into the VP's former company
Give it to slashdot to (Score:2, Insightful)
I am a Democrat and I don't like Bush, but lets look at this form the other end. Would you mind someone spraying in "chalk" that doesn't go away for two whole weeks pro-Bush/anti-Kerry propaganda on your home sidewalk, in front of your business, in the public park, etc? Or do you think that people should have the freedom of speech to print what ever they want on yours or others property as long as it goes away in about two weeks?
Re:What was he charged with? (Score:3, Insightful)
That offends me and it should offend others. If the police had probable cause to arrest him then they must have had a charge in mind.
The Sixth Amendment acknowledges the right to be informed of the charges against you. It doesn't say how soon you have to be informed but this incident is clearly contrary to the spirit of the law.
Re:We're on the defensive (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:I would have busted him, too... (Score:4, Insightful)
Peacefully marching for a political statement is NEVER illegal. Defacing property is ALWAYS illegal. Now, as for selective enforcement, volume does matter.
If I was going 45 in a 35 a cop might let me go with a warning, he wont if I was going 60. If I shout "FUCK" loudly in public I wont get in trouble, but if I keep shouting it over and over and get all my friends to do it too, then I would probably get charged with disturbing the peace.
I'm not saying the article in question involved volume, I'm showing flaws in your analogy.
Re:What was he charged with? (Score:3, Insightful)
John Kerry would have [capitolhillblue.com].
Or lowered taxes for the rich...
The poor don't pay income taxes, pretty much, as a rule. The top 25% of taxpayers pay 83% [ntu.org] of the taxes. How do you lower taxes on people who don't pay any taxes, or, in the case of people who get child credits and the EITC, get government subsidies?
or reduced our civil liberties...
Name five you've lost.
or alienated our allies...
Coalition to fight in Iraq included more countries this time than in '91. France and Germany had reasons to support Saddam's regime, namely, they were profiting from the oil-for-food fiasco. While that hasn't been thoroughly investigated yet, it's not going to be a pretty picture for our European "allies."
or wish to take away women's rights...
Again, name five.
or had a term with negative job growth.
And how many of the past presidents were in the midst of a recession when a major act of terrorism struck?
The job losses were a continuing effect of the dot-com bubble, which burst in spring 2000, as well as some bad fiscal policy from the Fed in preparation for Y2K. If you think it's President Bush's fault that people lost jobs, I have some Flooz I'm looking to sell.
I saw a quote in an AP article yesterday, I think, that was from an unemployed guy supporting Kerry, because he thought Kerry was going to create jobs. If you actually think politicians create jobs, there's a reason you're unemployed -- you're stupid. Yes, the Republicans spout the same rhetoric, but it's fiction. If you don't know that, keep drinking the Kool-Aid, my friend. You sir, are the perfect Democrat voter.
Re:I would have busted him, too... (Score:4, Insightful)
My eyes are accosted daily by billboards and advertising, but they do obey certain zoning laws, costs, and restrictions. Supposedly, anyway.
Frankly, I do take some objection to the original post for referring to this as, "this guy's work". Really, "work" ? Like this is some sort of serious artistic endeavor ? Or are they referring to his "getting the message out" kind of work ?
I don'particularly care to see pro Bush, pro Kerry, anti Bush, nor anti Kerry chalk graffiti on the streets. It's just bozotic. Hell, I don't even like seeing all the political posters and placards that people put up on their front lawn, but that's their private property so they have that right.
I guess it comes down to this: people have the right to express themselves, but do they have the right to shove it in my face ?
Re:I would have busted him, too... (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, this may be in violation of some local ordinance. What concerns me is that the arresting officers and their superiors are not sure what ordinance it violates, so they confiscate his property and arrest him anyway.
A free society dies when law enforcement can begin arresting people and look for an illegal act later. If proffesionals are no longer sure of what is legal, how is an ordinary citizen able to stay within the law?
Re: I would have busted him, too... (Score:3, Insightful)
> How often do schoolgirls roam the city, drawing hopscotch guides all over the place? My recollection from when I was a kid was that almost all hopscotch guides were drawn near the home of one of the participants, usually on the sidewalk in front of their house.
I lived in a house in a residential neighborhood for a while, and regularly found them on the sidewalk in front of my house and on my driveway.
Never called the cops over it, though.
Re:I would have busted him, too... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Supreme court would find no probable cause (Score:5, Insightful)
You may have heard of this document called The Constitution [house.gov]. See, it turns out that it trumps all other laws in the land...
Re:I would have busted him, too... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Civil Disobedience (Score:5, Insightful)
Shame, shame, shame! (Score:5, Insightful)
Secondly, while not all graffiti is equally defensible, I think of it as a valuable form of expression. And the problem is that as with many other free speech issues, you cannot protect the positive uses while penalizing the negative ones. Hear me out, before you jump the gun.
See, there are times when the appropriation of public space is the only way to speak because the state or its corporate allies controls all legal -or the most effective- forms of communication. This isn't as true in the United States, although the large media conglomerates do exercise a great deal of control over what he hear and listen. Thankfully, we have the internet still left.
Yet, as surprising as that may be to some Slashdotters, a piece of wall is an easiser medium to master than a computer and thinking otherwise only shows how out of touch some of you may be with some very poor communities in the United States where internet access does not exist nor do the skills to use a computer are common (I am working on fixing both, by the way).
Moreover, graffiti and leafletting have both played a crucial role in breaking the fear that grips societies in authoritarian regimes. In dictatorships where people often die for less than painting graffiti on the wall, a piece of political graffiti can serve to end the sense of isolation caused by fear that often renders people unable to seek other ways to overthrow the military junta.
If you are interested in history, read about how graffiti was used against the dictatorships of the southern cone in Latin America in the late 1970s and 1980s.
The ethymological origin of the word is also very telling:
Graffiti Graf*fi"ti, n. pl. It., pl. of graffito scratched Inscriptions, figure drawings, etc., found on the walls of ancient sepulchers or ruins, as in the Catacombs, or at Pompeii.
Re:I would have busted him, too... (Score:5, Insightful)
Try getting a group together in a major city and march down the street, or gather together in a public park WITHOUT a permit and see what happens. Try carrying an anti-Bush sign outside of an "approved free-speech zone" during the Republican National Convention and see how long it takes you to get arrested.
Re:What was he charged with? (Score:3, Insightful)
True. Iraq was arguably an actual threat, and Saddam's abuses were far worse than Slobo's.
[DMCA] Doesn't compare to the Patriot Act
Both were passed with overwhelming bipartisan support. Do you really think Al "Clipper" Gore would have done anything different?
Look at the timing! (Score:5, Insightful)
So he gets arrested right before the "live" event! Considering that he wasn't arrested immediately, but rather a few hours later, one wonders if some higher-up checked his website...
Re:Should have known (Score:2, Insightful)
Here comes the logic.
I can't stand everyone who is 'anti-Bush'. Why don't you devote your efforts to being pro-Kerry? I ask you, who do you think should be president, and you say, "Not Bush!". Well, Jerry Falwell is not Bush. Saddam Hussein is not Bush. Hell, I am not Bush, but I'll take the job, and I guarantee if you don't like Bush, you definitely won't like me.
This is the problem with simple negation. Sorry it had to come down on you, but there it is.
Re:I would have busted him, too... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Time, place and manner regulations are lawful (Score:3, Insightful)
we spent so much time in civics class learning about the constitution and how it has been passed down to today through amendments and court decisions, but we never really focused on the 'should haves' of those changes. saying something shouldn't be abridged is a strong statement, but it just gets glossed over as people are more and more willing to tolerate government interference because it serves them well in the short term.
Re:Funny enough, I was planning on voting for Kerr (Score:1, Insightful)
I don't care if you get blowjobs in the oval office and lie about it (clinton), or if you're a rich french-looking frankenstein-faced war hero (kerry) with a prettyboy sidekick, or if you were a drunk with DUIs (bush), or if you're a "gay american" who cheats on his wife (mcgreevy). What does that have to do with their politics? Nothing... except in Bush's case, both the politics and the politician suck-- he's a bible-thumping speech-impaired idiot who lied about way more than a victimless blowjob, and that's way more dangerous than your average "character flaw").
--
Re:What was he charged with? (Score:5, Insightful)
Name five you've lost.
Why five? Wouldn't one lost liberty be enough to cause concern?
In any case how about: the right to a trial (Jose Padilla), the right to a lawyer (Shoe-bomber dude), the right to call witnesses (the so-called 20th hijacker), the right to hear evidence presented by the prosecution (the Gitmo detainees), the right to not have the government know what you read (at least not without getting a warrant; Patriot Act), freedom of assembly and to protest (e.g. in Central Park).
Re:Should have known (Score:5, Insightful)
Were you also mad at Bush for being "anti - Saddam"?
Sorry, but maybe the people who are anti-Bush are not necessarily pro-Kerry. Maybe the issue is the terrorism inflicted by the Bush administration, and the fear that many Americans have of what Bush could do with "four more years".
Re:I would have busted him, too... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:We're on the defensive (Score:3, Insightful)
First they came for the Democrats, and I did not complain because I was not a Democrat.
You should know the rest.
Give me a break. This is freedom of speech we're talking about here. And freedom of speech isn't about being able to write a nice, polite opinion piece that's "slightly" against the government stance. They could do that even in the worst times in the USSR. Freedom of speech is about protecting the worst kind of speech - the kind that is flagrantly opposed to the government order, Michael Moore type stuff. Freedom of speech should be restricted only very carefully - "clear and present danger" and all that. It's not "clear and present annoyance". Part of the cost of living in a free society is putting up with people who don't share your views.
If you can only protest "politely", it isn't America anymore. All activists have a right to have their case heard, because one of these years, people like them are going to be right.
Re:I would have busted him, too... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:I would have busted him, too... (Score:2, Insightful)
Oh, probably five minutes after the convention is over.
Re:Should have known (Score:2, Insightful)
Three points for you:
1. liberalism has been declared unconstitutional
2. fucks like me have been put into jail
3. your pride comes through load and clear Mr. AC
Re:Should have known (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:I would have busted him, too... (Score:3, Insightful)
But no, I would not have an objection to someone chalking a pro-Bush message on the street in front of my house (I don't have a sidewalk). I might wash it off, or put an anti-Bush message next to it, but I wouldn't call the police!
Re:I would have busted him, too... (Score:5, Insightful)
Its a sad for America that the rabid Bush faithful and the previously apolitical Secret Service really are starting to closely resemble Brown Shirts.
I really don't know how conservatives can prattle about how they hate big government intruding in their lives and then turn around an bow at the feet of George W. I'll probably get modded as flame bait for it was more than a little deceptive when he campaigned as a "compassionate conservative". There isn't an once of true conservativism in him other than tax cuts for the rich. In reality he is a "compassionate fascist". The new Republican party isn't as oppressive as the fascist regimes in Germany and Italy....yet....hence the term "compassionate fascist", but if they stay in power for a few more years and have a new 9/11 attack as justification they will continue the steady migration to an oppressive police state.
In some respects I'd like to see them stay in power a while longer. It may reawaken the sedated America public to realize their government does manner and it can turn totalitarian thanks to American indifference. it may be the only way the American people will throw off the yoke thats been laid on them by a wealthy elite and giant corporations. After another 4 years the American people may be so appalled by the Republicans ad they were after McCarthyism the last time the ruled, that they will be thrown out of office and return to an impotent minority they should be. Of course the Democrats suck too so you are left hoping the complete mess American politics is currently in will be saved by a new 3rd party that will for a change represent middle America without the intolerance of the Republican's or the pandering to interest groups that is the Dem's.
The current misguided rush to redesign the intelligence agencies in the U.S. is a leading indicator of incoming totalitarianism. In the early 1970's Congress put a firewall between the FBI and the CIA, and between domestic and foreign spying to reign in massive abuses of spying on people in the U.S. who were guilty of nothing but opposing the people in power. It was spying designed to cement the hold on power of those in power and suppress dissenting viewpoints.
Just stop and imagine the massive power and potential for abuse now that the CIA, FBI, CIA, DIA are being merged in to one all seeing, all powerful spying agency with no restraints on its domestic spying powers. There will also be one person with a massive power to manipulate intelligence to fabricate the case for war as was done in Iraq and there will be no independent intelligence to offer a dissenting view.
Re:Civil Disobedience (Score:4, Insightful)
I would. And I'm not standing up for his right to vandalize, as I said, I'm glad he got arrested and I think it was correct to arrest him. I also think what he did was morally correct.
Now, would it be within his rights to vandalize if he was saying "Heil Hitler?" No. Should he be arrested in either case? Yes. Is it moral (regardless of whether it is legal or within your rights) to spread a message of "Heil Hitler?" No, it is not. This is why it is important to separate what is moral from what is legal. It is immoral to spread an immoral message. However, it is vital that we not allow the government to determine what a "moral message" is.
I would support his right to spread a message of "Heil Hitler" by legal means, even though I disagree with that message and think it would be wrong to spread it. I also support the morality of this guy spreading his morally correct message by illegal means, even though I don't think he does or should have a legal right to do so.
Re:I would have busted him, too... (Score:3, Insightful)
If this right to distrubite a message by any means did exist (which it dosen't) then wouldn't you be violating someone else's rights by hosing off the message in front of your house?
Re:Time, place and manner regulations are lawful (Score:4, Insightful)
So long as the government - in this case, NYC - does not regulate content, it can regulate the time, place, and manner of expression.
As long as they arrest people for writing political messages in chalk but not kids playing hopscotch or artists working with chalk, they are regulating content.
Stupid troll (Score:5, Insightful)
You're not only a troll, but a stupid troll. And whoever modded you interesting has no business being a moderator.
(Oh, sure, the reporter lied too, because big media is so antiBush. Spare me).
Re:I would have busted him, too... (Score:3, Insightful)
If so, I'm going to come over with my water soluble chalk and write pro-Bush slogans on it. I'll do it for free too!!
Re:I would have busted him, too... (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes. [archives.gov]
And I hope we always have this right.
Re:I would have busted him, too... (Score:3, Insightful)
Honestly Slashdot, this got modded up? That is just embarrassing. Ironically, I've found people like this are often the first to complain about restrictions on free speech. A small revelation might be: if people have control over their private property (aka freedom) they can use if for their own speech, or to advertise, they are one and the same.
I've talked with enough people of this 'indymedia' type mentality to know what the conversation typically goes like:
Anon: I'm so sick of being bombarded with this advertising against my will
Me: But wait, isn't most of this in TV or Radio. Don't you voluntarily listen to these things? More over, most of it is provided free to you, because of advertising. Couldn't you just stop watching?
Now, this is the time I point out, I only listen to NPR and I don't own a TV ( this is the honest truth). It is possible to forgo these things, if you decide they aren't worth it to you. This point will have to be conceded, because it only leaves 'Anon' to realize they are just whining... their argument becomes "This stuff should be just provided to me" Which is only a function of their typical false sense of entitlement. This means they are only left with this recourse...
Anon: Fine, but I am forced to watch billboards and ads on buildings... I can't 'change the channel' on those.
Me: Fine, but do you believe in freedom of speech?
Anon: Yes, but that doesn't mean advertising should be allowed
Me: Fine, so if I own property, the government should be allowed to say what I put on my barn? Or if I put a billboard up to make extra money on my farmland?
Anon: Yes
Me: (Ok, so now individual freedom of speech is out.. or at least people aren't allowed to see it. The argument could be made that you could just restrict 'commercial speech'.. so I will allow this and explore it:) So should businesses be allowed to put up signs? (If not, how the hell will anyone know where anything is?)
Anon: Yes, fine.. but just identifying ones, on the business, saying what business it is.
Me: There we have it... now what you've just done is made high-traffic real-estate unattainably expensive. Since now the only people will only know about businesses that are in well known locations. Now only big 'corporate' chains can afford to start a new store, because the good (aka exposed) land is insanely expensive. The question is... when someone starts a new business, how do they succeed? They can't afford high traffic land, and without that, no one will come to their business because no one will know about it. Think life is irritating now because you have to suffer the 'extreme discomfort' of glancing at a billboard? Imagine a world where only Walmart can afford to open a new store.
Nothing's legit unless money transfers hands.
Again, this is embarrassing. Do you think if a billboard donated space to this guy he would be arrested? Of course not. Stop saying such drivel and making the entire left wing seem like a bunch of whiney upper class college kids with a false sense of entitlement and no critical thinking skills [indymedia.org]
Re:Godwin's Law: You lose (Score:1, Insightful)
Well, no, because he wasn't actually comparing Bush/Ashcroft to Hitler/Himmler. He was pointing out flaws in the root poster's argument by using the same reasoning to defend the undefendable. "Reductio ad absurdum", I think it's called.
Re:What was he charged with? (Score:4, Insightful)
If he will be realeased after a hearing, doesn't that say something about the validity of the charges against him? If there is insufficient evidence to hold him, why was he held for 3+ years without a trial?
I'm not honestly contesting that people like Richard Reed should be in jail, but I think it is wrong that they had to argue all the way up to the Supreme court just for the basic rights afforded most other criminals. You will note that this admisnistration fought in every court to prevent such rights being afforded to these guys. That's not right.
They're enemy combatants, and are being held outside the United States. The US courts do not have jurisdiction over the matter.
The Supreme Court disgarees with that statement. And you should be ashemed of yourself for supporting something that so blatantly violates the spirit of the Constitution.
Don't get your reading materials from the government, and you won't have a problem.
They can also look at purchase records from bookstores, and subpoena internet records. Where else am I supposed to obtain reading materials, pray tell?
any time you deal with the state you have to assume that you will be violated
That's not the Constitution I have learned about. You can be a cynic, but you shouldn't defend what you know in your heart is wrong.
Re:Should have known (Score:1, Insightful)
Man, your argument sounded like logic, and looked like logic, but it broke down under the slightest strain. If that is the kind of support Bush gets, no wonder he is destroying the world.
Re:I would have busted him, too... (Score:3, Insightful)
Maybe you could do some research on your own? (Score:3, Insightful)
I guess that depends upon your personal goals and values. 4 years of Bush has been very good if you happen to benefit from his tax breaks and such.
If Kerry rolls back the tax cuts on the wealthiest, then 4 years of Kerry would be "worse" for them then 4 more years of Bush.
It isn't like Kerry's voting record is not publicly available.
"Unless someone is willing to at least do some minimal pro-Kerry arguing (i.e. "he's mediocre at worst"), then there's really no reason to vote for him."
Let me explain something to you.
Democracy only works when the voters EDUCATE THEMSELVES about the issues.
You want someone to convince you to vote for Kerry. Well, that's very nice for you. But how do you know that what that person tells you is factual?
Re:but you have to make a positive argument (Score:3, Insightful)
Well, I'm not pro-Kerry... and, I'm not anti-Bush.
But, I'd vote for anyone but Bush. (Including Saddam if you really want to froth at the mouth... he'd be better for America than Bush, IMHO.)
Why?
Simple.
To restore the checks and balances in the constitution.
Having all of the branches following the same music director has proven to be a very bad idea... it needs to stop.
So, I expect that the republicans will hold the congress... and I'll vote for not-republican in the White House.
And, if someone really bad... like Saddam... was in there, then I believe congress would effectively nuter him... as the president should be.
Actually, if the president veto'd every bill passed by congress...they'd basically have to compromise and pass with a veto proof margin... and congress blocked everything the president did (again by compromising and getting together in a veto proof manner)... we'd probably have the absolute best four years ever.
So... in a way... someone really nasty, like Saddam... would probably give us the best four years of gov't ever. By stalling everything!
Limits to Freedom (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Should have known (Score:2, Insightful)
the legal definition of "corporation" is given here [law.com]. it says nothing about a corporation's right to levy taxes or to pass legally binding ordinances. while a city shares many traits of a corporation, it is not a corporation proper, but is a "municipal corporation," and its status under the law is much different than that of other corporations. i'm sure there is a law in place to address what this guy did (in fact, you found it, it's the next in your list!), but this one ain't it. i said nothing about it being okay because it was public property, i just said this particular law doesn't apply.
as for my house and what gets chalked on it, therein lies the distinction. it's MY house. this man did what he did in public space. also, you bring up the definition of damage, so let's run with that: 1.loss of value? nope. it's just chalk, and it washes away. 2.impairment of usefulness? nope, unless it's some crazy kind of chalk i've never seen, you can still walk on it.
as for your point that this is an issue of enforcement, not necessarily letter of the law legality, makes me have two thoughts: first, why have such poorly written laws that their applicability is up to the personal judgement of the guy with the gun? isn't that what codified law is intended to avoid? and second, if a child playing hopscotch outside their home is given wide leeway, why isn't political speech outside of a political convention? it seems to me that this, of all places, is where if it were going to happen, it should happen.
Re:Should have known (Score:1, Insightful)
Ducked? How many purple hearts do you have jerkoff? Don't go spewing any of that Swift Boat Veterans for Truth crap either, as most of that has been exposed as politically motivated lies.
And if you'll notice, the vast majority of the country was complaining about the war, so it's not like Kerry is part of some freakish minority.
Re:Should have known (Score:2, Insightful)
10-117, as the section title indicates, applies to paint, markers, and etching acid, all *permanent* forms of graffiti.
This is not a commercial advertisement and moreover, it doesn't deface or damage anything. Neither Kinsberg or the hopscotch kids are in violation (technically or otherwise) of the law.
Re:Give it to slashdot to (Score:3, Insightful)
This "two weeks" business is only true if you allow it to erode naturally.
Re:Should have known (Score:3, Insightful)
More correctly I'm with the "anybody but a poli-fucking-tician" crowd.
Untrustworthy, lying, scheming, self-agrandizing SOB's the lot of them.
I mean really, my choices are a "c" student and someone who can't be bothered to show up to work?
Cripes! This is supposed to be the greatest country on earth and THIS?!!? is the best we can come up with??? I'd rather vote for the guy who runs the corner store.
Re:I would have busted him, too... (Score:3, Insightful)
If its really a private event, as in your analogy, then the enforcement should be through private security and should stop at barring entry or ejection from the venue, not arrest, especially if there is no disorderly conduct (since you are vague on the concept wearing a T shirt with the name Bush on it doesn't qualify as disorderly conduct, illegal or any other grounds for arrest).
Kind of shows you how willing you've become to accept having your rights trampled that you thinks its OK, and are apologizing for it, when someone threatens arrest of a teenager for having a Kerry sticker on his wallet that wasn't even visible were it not for an intrusive and unwarranted search. At that point you have sacrificed pretty much all free speech and freedom of political thought, you can be ARRESTED merely supporting an opposition candidate. This is what 3rd rate dictators do and we keep telling ourselves and the world what a great democracy we are. Well we simply aren't any more.
This also extends far beyond Republican campaign events. It seems to be happening pretty much every place the President appears. He is a paid servant of all the people, even the ones who didn't vote for him, though he seems to have completely forgetten that fact.
You have to wonders what kind of "Emperor's New Clothes" fantasy world Bush lives in if he NEVER encounters anyone who disagrees with him. What a mind trip it must be for him to know anyone who says a disparaging word about him is subject to arrest, such power, such total power. This is how slow moving totalitarian states are created. They just slowly move out the boundaries of what is acceptable for the state and what is not acceptable for the people, until the state has absolute power and the people have none.
Comment removed (Score:3, Insightful)
Protect Political Speech! (Score:3, Insightful)
Why? Because if we can't speak out against our government, we can't effect change. We end up with an oppressive government. If there is one right that sets a free country apart it is our right to agree or disagree with those in power. While there are obvious limits to other kinds of speech (you can't yell fire in a crowded theater) there really can't be the same kinds of limits to political speech in our free society (with perhaps the exception of slander/libel).
This freedom extends to such unpopular organizations as the KKK - and is what gives them the right to speak their unpopular brand of politics. It extends to every man, woman, and child regardless of their political persuasion and it trumps the rights of others who may disagree (ie the NAACP can not stop the KKK from disseminating their hate, nor can the KKK quell the NAACP from their rights to speak against the KKK).
As I've just demonstrated, the right to political speech can sometimes be uncomfortable but it is the right of every citizen of the United States.
Still, if it can be proven that using degradable, water soluble, organic chalk is a form of vandalism then perhaps the police had a right to detain and confiscate but according to the article that is not what has happened. Right now it seems like the NYC Police are acting as agents for the RNC and simply limiting this man's right to free speech.
That is un-American and unconstitutional! Not to mention unconscionable.
Re:Time, place and manner regulations are lawful (Score:3, Insightful)
well here is where you are completely, utterly, shamefully (and theoretically) wrong.
The first amendment isn't about letting anyone do anything. It's about limiting the power of authority to stop you from doing it.
Of course it is all a sick joke anyway, but I was feeling pedantic.
compare(Bosnia, Iraq) (Score:2, Insightful)
Doesn't compare to Iraq.
Dozens of Americans were killed in Bosnia, and what do we have to show for it? The Europeon countries for whom we took this action -- shed this blood, sacrificed a Cabinet Secretary -- have proven they will not reciprocate. We cannot build or use military facilities in Bosnia.
We have nothing to show for our work in Bosnia. We are left with the conclusion that President Clinton's actions were simply to distract from his dishonorable domestic conduct. Readers are encouraged to rent and view this documentary [imdb.com].
On the other hand, for the cost of a thousand American soldiers (and a hundred billion Iraqi babies!!!), have created an ally in the middle of the Middle East. We have a great big unsinkable aircraft carrier. We have a California-size staging area for further pacifications.
In other words, we have a whole new country to show for our work. Pretty damn impressive!
And the only pinheads who think it was a "distraction" from the War on Terror have not heard of the Abu Nidal Organization [fas.org] or the Salman Pak [globalsecurity.org] training camp.
Of the socialist ANO, the Federation of American Scientists says, "Has received considerable support, including safehaven, training, logistic assistance, and financial aid from Iraq, Libya, and Syria (until 1987), in addition to close support for selected operations." (emphasis added to make it perfectly clear that Iraq supported terrorists) Of special relevance is Libya -- whose capitulation in the War on Terror was a direct result of the action in Iraq.
Like the song says,
If you want a President who kicks ass, vote Republican.
If you want a President who kisses ass, vote Democrat.
If you want a President who is an ass, vote Green.
If you want a President who will let you buy ass, vote Libertarian.
Media attention-span (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:I would have busted him, too... (Score:1, Insightful)
Corporations shove advertising to me everywhere they can (YAY I get to watch TELEVISION before I watch the movie I paid 10 dollars to see now!) They advertise in cabs in new york. they advertise on tv, they advertise on radio, they advertise EVERYWHERE.
So no, I don't care if this guy puts some chalk down.
Some 10 year olds accidentally lit a dry field on fire the otherday. THEY ARE IN JAIL FOR ARSON.
Fucking facists. I think we should arrest you for your hypocracy. You say you are *acosted* by corp. advertising, and that's okay because they paid for it. then you want to hang this guy for marking the sidewalk with chalk. Prick.
Re:I would have busted him, too... (Score:3, Insightful)
Yeah, for advertising it's: and then for political speech it's:
Re:If he's so smart (Score:2, Insightful)
Did you read the article? (Score:2, Insightful)
Quote from the article:
"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."
And from bikesagainstbush.com:
"Bikes Against Bush will utilize a water-soluble chalk mixture. It is the same material used for marking athletic fields. It is environmentally safe and removes easily with water, or naturally biodegrades within 15-30 days. Thus, while the messages may have the appearance of graffiti, this is certainly not an attempt to damage or deface property."
Re:I would have busted him, too... (Score:2, Insightful)
Your problem, not mine.
There is nothing in the First Amendment that gives you the right to force others to listen to you. No free soapboxes, no right to block public rights-of-way. Your right to free speech cannot interfere with my rights to peace and quiet and to use public streets for their intended purpose, so sayeth the Ninth Amendment.
Re:Property (Score:5, Insightful)
OK, this is quite an interesting subject, and deserves a lot more answer than I have time to give here. As I said, our society is a long way from being ready to do without the concept of private property. Right now, private property is the only way someone can benefit from their labor, and as such it is a necessary part of our society. The thing is, private property is not the only way it is possible, in theory, for a person to benefit from their own labor, that's just the way we do it.
If we were properly organized, that is, if we were organized in small egalitarian groups with strong social bonds (tribes), everyone would benefit from their own labor because everyone's labor would benefit the group, and the good of the group would benefit the individual. There would be no need for private ownership, everyone in the group could collectively "own" and use the resources created by the group.
However, without this kind of organization, in the kind of dog-eat-dog system we have now, private property is essential. So I think we, as a culture, have a lot of growing up to do before we're ready for a non-propertarian system.
However, as to corporate property, I think we could take steps to abolish this now without radically changing our culture. Corporations have only existed for a relatively short time. It would take a lot of work to dismantle them, but I think it's something we can work toward without doing all the hard work of reorganizing our culture that would be necessary to abolish private property completely.
If I create something is it not mine?
Ah, but under the current system, most of the things people create are not theirs, they belong to their employers from the moment of their creation. Indeed, the current system does enormous violence to this basic idea of private property.
But I would put it differently. I would say, "if I make something, should I not benefit in proportion to the value of what I have created?" Absolutely. One of the biggest problems with the current system is that it does not promote that, but instead usually rewards the people who make things far less than the value of what they create, in order to line the pockets of people who didn't create anything. The thing is, I don't think private property is the only way to accomplish this, as I've outlined above.
as a concequence, there may be damage to the reputation of the ideal that any protester wishes to advance, if they use such tactics.
You are quite right, and you have convinced me that spray-painting Starbucks would be a bad idea, not on moral grounds but on tactical ones. It is very important that any act of expression be designed not to offend the majority of the population, otherwise it will have the opposite effect of the one intended. In this light, what this guy did with his chalk is perfect, as most people would not consider that vandalism, and it got him enormous publicity and probably a lot of popular sympathy and support.
Sure they should, there should just NEVER to a seperation of the corporation from the people who own or run said corporation.
But that is equivalent to abolishing corporate property. What you would have is not corporate property, it would be personal property owned jointly by the owners of the corporation. I agree completely that this is the immediate goal we should be working toward. After that, we can go further if possible, but right now, corporations need to be held accountable in a real way for their actions, otherwise we're in big trouble.
we are not a true democracy
Yes, yes, I know, we are technically defined as "a republic with a strong democratic tradition" according to the CIA. However, that strong democratic tradition necessitates having an egalitarian view, rather than an elitist one. I'm just urging you to have more respect for the opinions of others, that's all.
What is jeapordizing our freedoms...
Re:What was he charged with? (Score:2, Insightful)
I'm not sure that you can justify Iraq being an actual threat. Iraq no doubt wanted to strike against the US but did not have the capability to do so. On Sadam's abuses, the fact that most of them were committed when Iraq was allied with the US shows current administration rhetoric to be highly hypocritical.
Re:I would have busted him, too... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: I would have busted him, too... (Score:2, Insightful)
http://www.majcher.com/img/alyssa-milano-bikini-mu d-3.jpg [majcher.com]
Re:Should have known (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:I would have busted him, too... (Score:2, Insightful)
How free is speech no one hears? How free is speech when the designated zone for protest is a half mile from the event being protested?
Re:What was he charged with? (Score:2, Insightful)
The whole point of innocent until proven guilty is just that, innocent until proven guilty. And if there exists such overwhelming evidence against a terrorist thug that there's no question that he's guilty, so much so that law enforcement feels justified in treating him like a criminal before he's been convicted, what's the harm in letting him have a lawyer? I mean, I realize that lawyers are sometimes able to weasel sleazy clients out of their rightful punishment, on technicalities, etc, but a terrorist? A real terrorist?
I mean, the whole point is that there's evidence, right? There should be trouble convicting him. Why bother taking his rights away? Due process will do it, just as effectively.
Unless, of course, you're worried the courts in the USA will acquit him
Do you guys still believe you are free? (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:What was he charged with? (Score:2, Insightful)
Actually, its a fact that he wasn't, as proven by the complete lack of WMD stockpiles and the means to deliver them.
Do you really think Al "Clipper" Gore would have done anything different?
The clipper chip was meant to give the NSA a backdoor into communications, hardly in the same league as throwing people in jail indefinitely without a trial....
Re:I would have busted him, too... (Score:4, Insightful)
In contrast Kerry was taking hard hitting questions from ordinary citizens in Ohio. People asked him about the war, flip flopping, his senate record etc. Nothing was off the table.
That shows me that kerry has balls.
Re:That's because... (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes, it's the exact fucking quote, but it is not the complete exact fucking quote. The meaning is significantly changed if you include that snippet in the context of his speech. Heck, you didn't even include his whole sentence!
I'll put the quote here, but it won't do any good, because I suspect you're more interested in hating Bush than in correcting yourself. The quote uttered in Lancaster to a group of Amish was "I trust God speaks through me. Without that, I couldn't do my job." [politicalwire.com] Regardless of your opinions on that quote, if you're intellectually honest you have to admit that it implies something very different from your out-of-context snippet.
The quote tells me that Bush believes in God, gains moral strength from believing in God, and trust that he is following Gods will. He most certainly is not claiming to hear voices in his head, as you claim. Instead he's say8ing pretty much what most many Christians do. If your argument against Bush is that he's a Christian, then be honest with yourself and say so. Don't hide being misleading out-of-context quotes.