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.
1st admentment (Score:3, Interesting)
Well fuck the first admendment here. I'm a Bush supporter and I think this guy got railroaded. Nothing wrong with what he was doing. I hope he sues the fuck out of NYC for this.
Re:I would have busted him, too... (Score:4, Interesting)
Hmm, that seems to be the sad state of today's world. Everything's a-ok as long as you've paid somebody. Nothing's legit unless money transfers hands.
Re:I would have busted him, too... (Score:3, Interesting)
On the other hand, there is the question of his actions being "speech," and in the class of "speech" protected by the first amendment. (I use quotes around speech because the Supreme Court has established precedents that delineate more than the literal act of vocalizing words as "speech", such as Cohen v. California in the 70s.) Precisely whether or not his actions fall into that protected class and trumping the local charges with federal law will, of course, be a matter for the courts.
Personally I thought it was a neat hack, and since I'm completely in sympathy with the protestors instead of the establishment, I'm sorry to see him busted.
We're on the defensive (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
I've noticed that dissent is becoming less and less tolerated. If you're not for us, you're against us. It's fairly clear that water soluble chalk will not meet the minimum requirements for "vandalism" and you can see above that even the arresting officer had doubts about this arrest.
The changes are coming fast and furiously. The DMCA, restrictions on freedom of speech. Has anyone else that by contrast to the 1960's we don't need to protest FOR change, at this point we need to protest to prevent these weekly changes that are intended to reduce our rights?
Think about it. This is a major difference. We're on the defensive. That cannot be a good sign.
Re: I would have busted him, too... (Score:5, Interesting)
Charges were filed against Fred Gwynnes character, and while they were cross examining him, they brought up an old case where he locked up 2 8 year olds for "vandalism" for drawing hopscotch on the sidewalk with chalk.
Oh, and the story was based on real a real story. So yes, girls have been locked up for drawing hopscotch on the sidewalk (by insane southern frankenstien judges)
Re:Should have known (Score:5, Interesting)
It's nothing bad in it IF..... (Score:2, Interesting)
Civil Disobedience (Score:5, Interesting)
What's the point of civil disobedience if you don't get arrested for it? The whole idea is to get arrested to get publicity for your message and to put a stress on the system. Would any of us have heard of this if he hadn't been arrested? If he's really committed to his cause, spending a few nights in jail should be a small price to pay for this kind of publicity.
Re:Funny enough, I was planning on voting for Kerr (Score:1, Interesting)
Re:I would have busted him, too... (Score:3, Interesting)
It won't matter if these actions are considered speech or not, as the exercise of the First Amendment is still subject to reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions. I doubt he will be able to make a First Amendment argument that this particular place and manner of expression is one that can't be restricted.
Re:I want one! (Score:3, Interesting)
Give me this in an open source format (since he is a PowerBook user, I would assume [hope] it's perl or python), some basic instructions on how to hook up whatever device to whatever port (serial? USB?) and I'll rig this thing to my car now.
Very cool, and kudos for the technical implementation. Screw the politics behind it...
Get a free iPod! [freeipods.com][This really works! - I have only 3 more referrals to go, my buddy already got his iPod (I should have gotten into this earlier
Re:Slashdot lawyers (Score:3, Interesting)
Those Evil Republicrats! (Score:1, Interesting)
OH COME ON! Pull your collective head out, take a breath, and please remember how to think for yourself....
Re:I would have busted him, too... (Score:5, Interesting)
To use your own analagy of "Does everyone who speeds get a ticket?", no of course not. But if law enforcement selectively enforced the law so the only people that got speeding tickets were black people, well, I think the majority of people will think there may be a problem. I believe the parents use of "selective" falls under this context, and not under the context of "everyone who speeds should get a speeding ticket or no one at all" or "why do only the most flagrant violators get speeding tickets?" as your post implies.
Selective law enforcement is a very real and dangerous threat to every individual's rights, and without taking sides on whether or not the violator in the article was targetted soley for his opinion, or if it was just for his flagrant disregard of law, I still think it is very important for everyone to be watchful and wary of selective law enforcement. Whether or not this is a case of it, I think it is completely reasonable to question if it were, and the parent's post focuses on this very important issue.
Just because law enforcement is selectively targetting a group you may not agree with does not make it ok or not a very real and specific threat to you. "Unfavorable" groups can change on a whim and you may find yourself the member of one through no fault of your own and regardless of whether or not you are a good moral person.
Even worse, if this kind of law enforcement is allowed, it significantly increases the likelyhood of rights violating behavior being imposed on everyone, and with the possibility that the majority of people wouldn't object because of commonplace acceptance of selective enforcement in the past.
Re: I would have busted him, too... (Score:5, Interesting)
insane southern frankenstien judges
You mean like this judge [usatoday.com]?
Re:I would have busted him, too... (Score:5, Interesting)
DeCSS (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Should have known (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:How about no Political Posts on Slashdot this y (Score:5, Interesting)
And like someone else has said here, what is civil disobedience worth if it doesn't earn an arrest? How else is it effective? It doesn't earn near as much attention without someone getting arrested for it.
These people were not arrested for political reasons. They were arrested for breaking the law. If they were not arrested, it would suggest that the police allowed masses of protesters to keep on breaking the law for political reasons. Is that what you want? A stopped-up NYC with a police department that only warrants arrests when in disagreement with the perpetrators' political ideals?
Scale and intent do matter (Score:3, Interesting)
1) Scale. We made as little marks as possible. Just lines and arrows to indicate existance of power, gas, water, sewer, etc. We didn't go and draw a big picture all over the street and sidewalk.
2) Intent. The reason we did this was for the safety of workers. They needed to know if the dug in a certian spot, there was a gas line and to be careful to watch for it.
Thus I can see how both legally and morally this is different from kids drawing hopscotch fields. They are marking up a small area so they can play a game. He is marking up as much as he can to try and make people notice his message. He is advertising, really, though it is political in nature.
Re:mod parent up (Score:5, Interesting)
NBC ran a story on how several people have been arrested [herald-dispatch.com] this year for wearing anti-Bush t-shirts at Bush rallies. They wear something over the shirt (otherwise they couldn't even get in), then reveal the shirt. Then the Secret Service tells the local cops to revoke their "pass" (to public grounds) and arrest them for trespassing. The charges don't stand up in court, but by then of course the false arrest has served its purpose.
Second are these "protest zones." (I'm aware BOTH parties are guilty of this, so don't point that out as if it nullifies the issue somehow). This is America; we do not have "free speech zones."
Nobody ever said Democracy wasn't a little inconvenient or expensive at times. We don't seem to mind sending our soldiers to die for our rights, or spending billions on nation building, yet somehow can supress those same rights at home by citing the fear of crumpling the grass [toledoblade.com] in a public park.
Re:Not the Message (Score:4, Interesting)
The Court has held that speech can be curtailed if the government can demonstrate a "Compelling State Interest" in the censorship of this speech.
Perhaps an example will assist. I can hold up a sign in Central Park that reads "I hate SCO" The state will have a very hard time demonstrating that Compelling Interest. My sign doesn't endanger anyone.
If I stand in the same park with a sign that reads "I have 45 kilos of plastique strapped to my chest. God is Great!" the state will have an easy time proving Compelling Interest. My speech will cause a panic and people could very well be hurt in the panic.
Now, there is a caveat. The Supreme Court holds the state to an unusually high level of restraint when it comes to political speech. In cases like this, the state is required to demonstrate that your speech constitutes a clear and present danger to the welfare of the state. We're talking state secrets here.
Now, if the rules in NYC are even slightly ambiguous when it comes to sidewalk chalk this guy is going to get off scott free. The Courts require very specific and well justified rational for the silencing of political speech. If the state can't provide that rational and justification it will loose the case.
Re:That's because... (Score:2, Interesting)
I fear for the safty of the world from the menace that has become the USA.
Re:Should have known (Score:3, Interesting)
I am independent and vote either republican and democrat or even 3rd party, depending on the candidate, but this time the democrats could have run any of their candidates and I'd vote for him. I'd vote for a damn sock puppet right now if it had a chance of getting GWB out of office. I believe him to be a menace to the U.S.; he's done much harm to the country, I hope not irrepairable. I can't see why anyone who wants the U.S. to do well would want him in office for another 4 years. The democrats would have to run Beelzebub himself to get me to vote for GWB.
Yeah, go ahead and mod this -1 flamebait, happens every time I voice this opinion. But in this case I am just answering the question.
Re:I would have busted him, too... (Score:4, Interesting)
"...the theory of the Communists may be summed up in the single sentence: Abolition of private property"
Marx
"Freedom can only be found down the barrel of a shotgun......."
Mao-Tse-Tung
"Communism has nothing to do with love. Communism is an excellent hammer which we use to destroy our enemy."
Mao Tse-tung
"Under capitalism, man exploits man. Under communism, it's just the opposite."
John Kenneth Galbraith
MSNBC: Joshua has been released (Score:5, Interesting)
It was pointed out that the police claimed that they had watched him (Joshua) spray-painting the sidewalk with grafitti, but Ron (the interviewer) and Joshua (arrestee) knew that was false. The marks the police saw were put down the day before, not while the police were watching.
By the time Joshua and Ron got back to the scene of the crime today for the followup story, the chalk from the previous day was already gone.
Re:I would have busted him, too... (Score:3, Interesting)
Uh, then he would be a grown up and let people peacefully disagree with him, like all his predecessors did, instead of letting the Secret Service abuse their massive power to suppress free speech. The SS will contend they need to do this to protect him in these troubled times but that is an obvious canard since anyone who intended him harm would just refrain from packing signs critical of him, and would more probably be clean cut, wearing red white and blue and packing a sign singing praises of "Bush/Cheney Forever" which apparently dramatically increases your chances of getting within sight of the President.
I'm pretty sure the Republicans remember the lessons of Vietnam where public protest did what it was supposed to do, and put an end to a misguided war and government. This administration is sending an unmistakable message to dissenters that they will be tolerated only as long as they stay in pens, and thus render themselves impotent. Anyone who dissents in a way that is not "approved" or who is going to catch attention is going to regret it.
"and unless you have proof of arrests for supporting someone else, i dont beleive it."
I didn't say "arrests for supporting someone else". I said people have been arrested for nothing beyond a unveiling pair of T shirts with the name Bush in a red circle with a diagonal line through it. There is undeniable video footage of that one, saw it a couple days ago.
I also said a kid was barred from a speech, detained and threatened with arrest at a Minnesota event for carrying a sticker supporting Kerry. There must have been something to it because the local news station interviewed him and there is video of that. He apparently watched the speech on TV in the company of the local police or the Secret Service.
Do a Google search on "Minnesota Bush Kerry sticker wallet". The event was at a quarry in Mankato Minnesota. Obviously it the word of the kid involved and people who witnessed it since in that case he was detained and released so there was no public record of an arrest.
I'm referring to this as "Compassionate Fascism" since in a full up Fascist state the loyal party members would probably have just beat them, and the U.S. isn't that far gone yet. I just never would have believed the U.S. would be so far gone that only loyal party members can attend a speech by the President.
Most normal political candidates, ones who don't have a screw loose and want to get reelected. would let people who support their opponent in to their speeches with the intent of swaying them with the wise words. Thats how democracy used to work before it turned in to nothing but sound bites and attack ads.
Re:I would have busted him, too... (Score:4, Interesting)
It is a statement that is a symptom of a problem with todays left: Acceptance and Freedom, except when it is something we disagree with. (Note: The right does not have this problem, only because they don't pretend to be accepting)
I do not believe that you have ever had a conversation with an "indymedia type"
You are overestimating these people... I've read some great quotes on that site... In regards to Eco-terrorists burning down a building: "It's ok, corporations are not people, they don't have feelings" Nice logic. Indymedia is basically a place where the far left can go where they can be sure not to hear any dissenting views or commentary, so they can continue to convince themselves of their self rigorousness.
My point still stands about the parent post however: it is basically just whining by someone who can't figure out why he can't have the end-all say on what is acceptable for society.
Re:That's because... (Score:4, Interesting)
A Democrat convention run by Democrats in a Democrat stronghold violates the civil liberties of Democrat protestors. Please note this. It was NOT a Republican convention run by Republicans in a Republican stronghold. The actions of the Democrats do not match their words. They have become the Party of Hypocrisy! Why the entirety of the Democrat rank and file hasn't abandoned their party for the Greens is beyond my ability to comprehend.
Is your fear of Bush so much that you must actively engage in the same tactics you despise the opposition for?
Re:I would have busted him, too... NOT (Score:3, Interesting)
Rubbish. This is along the same lines as CBS's "we don't take advocacy ads" -- but beer ads ARE advocacy ads (they advocate that you drink a particular beer).
Commercial speech quite frequently is political speech. When ADM has commercials that indicate "we feed the world" -- that is political. Absolutely no way do they really feed the world. What they are intending to do is leave you with the impression that they are good guys. Therefore any bills before Congress are "to help feed the world" -- and ADM got a LOT of money out of Congress (but as a rancher I didn't see one freakin' dime).
Anyone who buys the "commercial speech ain't political speech" is living in the past. How many flags popped up in ads after 9/11? How many of these companies are actually NOT American companies (give you a hint: think Bermuda). How many companies tried to link themselves to the heroes of 9/11? I saw everthing from phone companies to soft drink. Not political?!?
Only a simpleton would believe commercial speech is not political.
Feloneous (a Texan who actually has a brain)
Re:Should have known (Score:4, Interesting)
An AC wrote:
Really? But what if the other candidate's:
Platform is nearly identical to Bush's, especially in the area some disagree with most: the Iraq war. Kerry would take Bush's war and run with it, only with more troops, and possibly be a bit more efficient with it.
Use of fear mongering to manipulate the people is the same as Bush's. After all, you wouldn't buy the "anybody but Bush" line if you weren't so afraid.
Suppression of free speech is nearly the same as Bush's. Bush has his free speech zones, as does Kerry. Only Kerry decorated his in early Gitmo.
Don't get me wrong. I wished we impeached the entire administration months ago. They so richly deserve it. But replacing the Mongol King and his band of megalomaniacs with a new Mongol King and his band of slightly more sane megalomaniacs out to do the same thing "only better" makes no sense.
The real enemies of the USA are not just the "terrorists" (though those guys badly need to be caught and given a fair trial and a nice long prison sentence), and they aren't just Bush and his administration. I will name the principle enemies of our nation: Fear, Deceit, Greed, Hate. No matter who you get in office, you have to take a stand against those four. Fear and Deceit are used to control people and together with Hate stampede them into war. War feeds the Greed of the powerful. Those four operate at all levels of government, not just the highest office, for power corrupts.
If you study the last century of our country's history and compare it to the ideals of the founders, you will find a lot of instances where we have strayed far from the founders' dream. Bush made the flaws all the more visible, but they were there before him. Getting rid of Bush, even in exchange for an absolute saint would not solve all the problems. This country desperately needs some major reforms. Getting rid of the four enemies above (especially in your own heart), voting for the best person for every office you can vote for, and educating yourself and others on the Constitution, Declaration of Independence and Bill of Rights is a good place to start.
If anybody asks, I'm pro-USA, pro-Liberty, pro-Justice, pro-Peace, and all heart. ;)
The words of John Quincy Adams ring as true as the Liberty Bell:
John Quincy Adams on U.S. Foreign Policy
Speech to the U.S. House of Representatives on July 4, 1821, in celebration of American Independence Day.
I was in Houston in 1992 (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Should have known (Score:2, Interesting)
Think maybe we could get Jon Stewart? Sure, he tends to be left-leaning (hey, every man has the right to an opinion), but he tends to be fair, none-the-less, has charisma, and, most importantly, has made a career on mocking politicians.
property rights (Score:3, Interesting)
Ah. Yes, I agree completely. I thought we were talking about injuring property, not people.
I'd like to thank you, M. Silver, you've given me an opportunity to seriously rethink my moral system, and I've come up with something which may help to explain where I'm coming from.
I think our difference of opinion arises from the fact that you believe in the concept of "property rights," whereas I do not. I must admit, I am prejudiced: I have a prejudice against inanimate objects. I do not assign them any inherent moral worth. This is in sharp contrast to the typical propertarian view, which assigns moral worth to objects relative to their "owner."
I assign moral worth to objects based on their function, as defined in relationship to living organisms. Objects have positive moral worth to the extent that they benefit living organisms, and negative moral worth to the extent that they harm them.
Because of this difference, it has been very difficult for me to translate your argument into terms that make sense in my value system. However, your above statement clarifies it completely, and you have a valid point. Certainly it is immoral to impar the overall function of an object, that is, to transform an object in such a way that it benefits living organisms less or harms them more.
So then the question becomes: does a coffee shop (for example) benefit living organisms more or less if it has "STOP BUSH" written on it?
This question separates the moral issue completely from what I view as the false right of "private property." Now we can talk about it in terms that make sense to me.
So now we have to determine to what extent the words "STOP BUSH" written on the coffee shop decrease its benefit to people in allowing its operators to sell coffee and make a living, and allowing its customers to buy coffee which they enjoy. We also have to determine whether the words "STOP BUSH" written on the coffee shop will actually have any effect on the presidential campaign.
Now, there's a pretty good case to be made that the answer to both questions is "not much." Most New Yorkers will probably not stop buying coffee at their favorite coffee shop simply because it has "STOP BUSH" written on it. Most people are not going to vote against Bush just because they saw "STOP BUSH" written on a coffee shop. So really, the moral impact of this action is pretty negligible either way, probably not even worth arguing over.
Now, within this tiny realm of moral discrepancy, there is room for argument. So if you can convince me that the negative impact of the graffitti on the business will be greater than the negative impact of the graffitti on the Bush campaign, then I will agree that the act is immoral.
There is also a general issue here. I think that if you impair the function of an object (whether it "belongs to you" or not), you have a moral obligation to repair that function. So if the graffitti does harm the shopkeeper's business, it is the moral obligation of the person who wrote it to clean it up, or to pay the shopkeeper to have it cleaned up. That is why vandalism should be illegal, and I think people should not do jail time for it, but they should be required to pay restitution.
are you a college student?
LOL. No, I am not, I'm 31 years old and left graduate school four years ago. But I can see why you ask. Disrespect for property rights is common among college students because they don't own much property. As people age and accumulate more property, their respect for property rights tends to increase. In my case, I doubt I will ever recognize the legitimacy of property rights, regardless of how much property I "own."