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.
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.
Supporting World Peace Through Nuclear Pacification
I don't think it's so bad. I'm forced to put up with advertising that is shoved in my face everywhere I go, and I get no say about it. The only difference here is that this guy did it for free and it's messages from the people, not from some corporation that has profit in mind.
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.
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.
The baby's fine -- please stop sending business cards.
Slightly OT but there was an ABC after school special in the 80's starring Alyssa Milano (Who's the boss) and Fred Gwynne (Munsters frankenstien dude) where Fred Gwynne played a southern judge who took justice a little too far by locking up juviniles for minor crimes in adult jails. Alyssa Milano was locked away for some minor violation, and subsequentially molested by a guard there.
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)
And IBM claimed they'd intended to use paint that washes away, much like the chalk bikesagainstbush uses, but they somehow ended up using permanent paint. They ended up paying a US$100000 fine. I hope the bikesagainstbush guy has tested his paint, so that no such unpleasant surprises can happen to him.
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.
My site: Free Nature Pictures
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.
Beware blue cats moving at
insane southern frankenstien judges
You mean like this judge?
THere is nothing illegal about a person carrying a protest sign in NYC. You just can't organize a group that blocks traffic, creates a nuisance, or disrupts the normal flow of things. Groups require permits so the city knows what is going on and is can be sure to allocate resources for traffic, law enforcement, safety etc. That just makes sense. Just remember your Free Speech rights stop when they start stomping on the rights of others. That has been well decided law in the US for many many years.
Have you been living under a rock or what? I don't think anyone actually likes Kerry. I don't because as a Senator he voted to give Bush the power to go to war. I'll vote for him, and you should too, because he's not a complete idiot. I also believe our president should be a respectable person who is honest, especially when people's lives are at stake. Maybe Kerry will do this and maybe he won't, but the one thing we know for sure is that Bush doesn't even care.
I've seen a lot of things, but I've never been a witness.
I suppose you have a link to the police report that proves he was arrested on political grounds... There were hundreds if not thousands of them. They posed a huge security risk. It was civil disobedience.
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?
NBC ran a story on how several people have been arrested 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 in a public park.
Not true. The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that the content of your speech does have serious implications as to weather or not it's protected by the first amendment.
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.
Killfile(TGK)
No trees were killed in the creation of this post. However, many electrons were inconvenienced.
Of course, and socialist or communist aims have never had stupid or evil intent:
"...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
nos laetus epulor qui would domito nos
Ron Reagon (son of Ronald) was the MSNBC correspondent interviewing Joshua about the arrest, jailing, and subsequent release.
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.
In theory, practice and theory are the same. In practice, they rarely are.
I agree with your post, and do think billboards should be regulated. (I'm from VT originally and believe that very strongly). But: I'm forced to put up with advertising that is shoved in my face everywhere I go, and I get no say about it is not a statement condemning current zoning procedures.
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.
As a libertarian I'm not going to vote for either Bush or Kerry. But if I had to pick one or the other, the events in Boston would definitely have me voting for anyone but Kerry...
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?
Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
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.