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)
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.
Re: I would have busted him, too... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: I would have busted him, too... (Score:4, Funny)
Re: I would have busted him, too... (Score:3, Funny)
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: 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: 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:4, Funny)
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: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: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
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.
OTOH... (Score:4, Insightful)
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: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: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 though
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: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: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: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: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: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
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
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?
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: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:4, 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: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:I would have busted him, too... (Score:5, Interesting)
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, 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: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: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.
Re:I would have busted him, too... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:I would have busted him, too... (Score:5, Insightful)
The question is: (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: The question is: (Score:5, Funny)
> what he did was vandalism, whether or not it was about pink elephants, faeries, or a dumbass president.
Actually he was going around printing "first post!" on all the sidewalks in the neighborhood, and the authorities thought it was some kind of coded terrorist message.
"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: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.
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:1st admentment (Score:5, Informative)
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: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.
They will rule us all.... (Score:5, Funny)
Now bikes are against Bush.
This is only the beginning. The machines will soon rule us all...
Re:They will rule us all.... (Score:5, Funny)
Now bikes are against Bush.
This is only the beginning. The machines will soon rule us all...
I want to see "vibrators against bush"...no seriously, where are those pics?
I wonder if . . . (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:I wonder if . . . (Score:5, Insightful)
Only if it was followed by, "...bring them home."
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.
Re:What was he charged with? (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
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?
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: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
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: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: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: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.
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 po
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.
spam from me to the bike to the streets.. (Score:4, Funny)
I do not want your MLMs;
I don't want to see nude teenage femmes.
I do not want psychic advice,
So there's no need to mail me thrice.
I do not like New Jerseyan swearing,
And I don't want the panties you're wearing.
I do not want your Asian chicks;
I don't care about your lame stock picks.
I do not want to see Pam's bod,
Don't care about your views on God.
I don't want calling cards prepaid,
Nor Herbalife's new diet aid.
So, Dave Rhodes, lawyers Seigel and Canter,
And the "I am so great" ranter,
And all you others who have no name--
Whether small-time or of nanae fame:
I do not want to sound too crass,
But I think someone should kick your
Hey, cool (Score:5, Funny)
That should make NYC streets even more interesting than usual for a while.
Slashdot lawyers (Score:5, Funny)
I don't recall such activism around the Democratic national convention - leave the freaking Republicans to have their week too.
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?
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.
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.
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]
I want one! (Score:4, Funny)
!!!
OFF
BACK
3210
554-
(555)
me
Call
And of course:
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.
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:Civil Disobedience (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
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: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...
He hasn't been charged (Score:5, Informative)
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
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.
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...
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:Should have known (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Should have known (Score:5, Informative)
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 (Score:5, Interesting)
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:Should have known (Score:5, Funny)
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.
Re:Can't say I agree... (Score:4, Insightful)
Latte sit-in for partial-birth abortion anyone?
Re:Can't say I agree... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Can't say I agree... (Score:5, Funny)
So I'm going to try to get my model rocketry club to organize something.
Re:Can't say I agree... (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Can't say I agree... (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Funny enough, I was planning on voting for Kerr (Score:4, Funny)
The way the allied-leaning have conducted themselves in regards towards Hitler is utterly fucking appalling. Never before in the 20th century have I seen people so fanatically and stupidly obsessed with insane and idiotic hatred towards a fuhrer. When someone else was fuhrer, I was appalled by the behavior of Nazis towards him, and I can tell you that as a left-leaning person myself I donated to Nader and was rooting for Al Gore. But the hatred for Hitler has taken a new low.
One can make a great case for hating Hitler. He's fucked up a lot, he was not level with the German people, he supports laws and ideologies that are potentially dangerous in regards to our right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. And that's not to say that there have not been plenty of reasonable, erudite condemnations regarding Hitler. But this is not true for the majority of Hitler haters. If you're going to hate on Hitler, hate on him for the right reasons, and do it in a reasonable, erudite manner. For example, when he says "the Jews are a menace to our pure Aryan blood," instead of accusing him of stupidity, try to disprove that claim in a reasonable, intelligent manner.
That's not to say that the right wingers are not full of profoundly stupid anti-Kerry idiocy. But it does not hold a candle to the stupidity in which the left has bashed Hitler. Instead of rational discourse, we are treated to whiny, strawman lecturing by Tom Tomorrow and Gary Trudeau. Instead of tact, we hear cries of "Hitler iz dum lol." Instead of truthful discourse on Hitler's evils, we have fat media whoring fucks lying and distorting the truth in ways which makes Adolf Hitler look like George Washinton. Moore should have learned a thing or two from Hitler - lying to make your case will always bite you in the ass in the long run. Instead of balanced, fair investigation, we see one-sided rants and conspiracy theories propogated by Rolling Stone and other mags, which then have the tenacity to complain that the media is controlled by capitalists and righties (I think the media is controlled by no one). Instead of voting one's conscious, we see nihilism and cynicism towards the political process, with the mantra "anyone but Hitler." We see Hitler punching bags, Hitler bashing books, basically a socialist franchise of playa hating which legitimizes the very socialist system the idiots abhor as being spearheaded by Hitler. An entire culture of angsty, misguided stupidity. So, I'm being angsty in the other direction.
In short, the liberal left has managed to piss me off more than the Radical Right. And as far as I'm concerned, Kerry's differences are so miniscule so as not to make a difference. Better to stick with the evil you know than the evil you don't know. But most importantly, I'm voting for Hitler as a big FUCK YOU to all the idiots who have made me lose faith in the liberal mode of thought.
I can't argue with these people, I can't reason with these people. There is nothing I really can do in any tangible manner to silence their idiocy. But as a German citizen, I can cast my vote.
So unless Teresa Heinz personally gives me a blowjob, or Hitler consumes an infant on live television, my vote will be going to Hitler this November, and there is nothing anyone can do about it.
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:Funny enough, I was planning on voting for Kerr (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Funny enough, I was planning on voting (Score:5, Funny)
Sadly, you must have missed the blowjob party. There were huge lines tho, and it took forever. :(
So cast your vote. That's the cool thing about voting, everyone can vote - even those who want to make a middle-school retaliatory gesture. See you at the polls; don't forget to take your bat and ball and go home.
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?
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.