Slashdot Mirror
Bikes Against Bush Creator Busted
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.
No. IBM got in trouble in San Francisco for painting "Peace, Love, Linux" on things.
Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
Technically, what he was doing was not vandalism. In this case, he demonstrated to the arresting officer that the chalk he was using washed off by itself, and did not stain the sidewalk. Vandalism and defacement only cover permanent damage, because the owner of the property should not be required to pay to clean up. In this case, a property owner has the option of paying, but also has the option of simply waiting, and the graffiti will clean itself up.
Here's that coral cache thing
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.
Microsoft also got in trouble I think in New York for the MSN butterfly
Torrent of the arrest.
It looks like NYC is gonna get wild this week. Please post as many photos and first-hand accounts as possible. Any helpful or relevant links would be greatly appreciated. Let's just hope nobody gets hurt!
http://www.letspaniclater.com/
http://www.rncnotwelcome.org/
http://www.counterconvention.org/
Have you read Houston v. Hill Recently. You're a texas guy.
...Relying, inter alia, on the Supreme Court's decision in Hill, we ruled in Mackinney v. Nielsen that expressive conduct such as writing with chalk on the sidewalk does not itself create probable cause for arrest ...
And GULLIFORD v PIERCE COUNTY
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
I do so all the time, both on my home sidewalk and formerly on my business sidewalk.
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
He explained and demonstrate to the arresting officers that the chalk was water soluable. The officers even agreed that chalking with this substance was not a crime. They were not under any misimpression that he was using paint or permanent chalk. This arrest was not a misunderstanding by the officers on the scene. This was a decision handed down from higher up. It will be argued in court perhaps that the higher ups misunderstood, but that still doesn't explain why a half-day later the "vandal" still has not been charged.
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.
Yah, and there's plenty of applicable statutes:
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.
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.
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
Anthony Papillion
Advanced Data Concepts, Inc.
"Quality Custom Software and IT Services"
According to this, 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, Halliburton was the only bidder. According to the Pentagon, taking other bids "would have been a wasteful duplication".
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 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.
My site: Free Nature Pictures
Good points there. There is, however, one other very important reason why the DNC apparently wasn't protested as much as the RNC, perhaps the most important reason:
Democrats kept protestors in a cage 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 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?
everything in moderation
Democrats kept protestors in a cage called the "Free-Speech Zone" during the DNC. The RNC isn't limiting free speech to a cage.
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.
Your post is well-intentioned, but ill-informed - I'm sorry you're so willing to state "these people were not arrested for political reasons" as fact.
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
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.