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.
although I can't say I'm upset either!
Even though the chalk is water-soluble, he admitted previously that it takes almost 2 weeks to wash off. I don't have a problem with his political stance - in fact, I agree with him - but the mere fact that his plan revolved around the defacement of public property is enough to warrant an arrest. IANAL, but writing stuff all over the sidewalk (over an extended area) - even in chalk - has to be against some local laws.
A blog like any other.
Was he doing it in Linux? Slashdot humor aside, he was arrested perfectly legally, for vandalism. People here will say "Omg look at them arresting people for not liking bush, blah blah blah!", but guys... what he did was vandalism, whether or not it was about pink elephants, faeries, or a dumbass president.
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
First Swift Boats are against Kerry.
Now bikes are against Bush.
This is only the beginning. The machines will soon rule us all...
the message "support our troops" would have gotten him arrested.
I'm laughing at clouds.
No. IBM got in trouble in San Francisco for painting "Peace, Love, Linux" on things.
Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
One would hope that this guy has some possibility of defending himself, if the charge is for vandalism. IANAL, but as far as I know a charge of vandalism needs proof of the intent to damage property. By using water-soluable chalk this guy has shown that he's not interested in damaging the property, only in showing his messages.
Punctanym: alternate spelling of words using punctuation or numerals in place of some or all of its letters; see 'leet'
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.
>> "What would the robut do? Frame someone!"
There is a fine line between protest and vandalism. The stuff comes off with water so I don't see how this is effecting anything.
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.
Yes! I listen to NYC Speedcore and do math at 3AM. I suggest you try it too.
tried takin it to the streets.. protesting spam anyway.. by sending this to the bike. Was too late. *sigh*
/dev/null.
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
** "It's not my job to stand between the people talking to me, and the ones listening to me." -- Pego the Jerk
Let's all send him messages like, "ONE WAY" and "RIGHT TURN ONLY"
:)
That should make NYC streets even more interesting than usual for a while.
Great, here come the Slashdot lawyers out of the woodwork. We're sure to be blessed with some rock-solid legal advice now.
I don't recall such activism around the Democratic national convention - leave the freaking Republicans to have their week too.
Together, we will drive the rats from the tundra.
I don't agree with most of the crap Hitler believes in. For what it's worth, I think Hitler is a sleazy, shady douchebag. And, save for the level-headed folk I see on Slashdot, I can't fucking stand Hitler supporters and militant Nazis. I really hate those fucking pudgy, clean-shaven, uptight business suit socialist twats on my campus. But my distaste for socialists and Hitler pales in comparison to my distaste for whackjob allieds.
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.
http://bikesagainstbush.com.nyud.net:8090/
_________ Help me get a PSP!
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.
Shall we then arrest all the local children who draw on the sidewalks in water soluable chalk? After all the kids' messages are non-political and much less deserving of first amendment protection according to the US courts, who have upheld consistently that government criticism deserves the highest protection of free speech?
No, really? We shouldn't arrest the kids? Shouldn't the law apply equally?
This person did no permanent damage to the public environment. He was not trespassing on private property. His message was protected free speech. Weighing all this, he should not have been arrested. I hope he makes a federal case out of the arrest, because even in a pro-Bush climate he'd likely win.
And before anyone asks, I'd have the same opinion if the messages were pro-Bush, pro-Kerry, pro-Nader, or anti-any-of-the-above. Free speech need not be popular to be permitted! In point of opinion, the least popular speech should be afforded the most protection.
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.
but this wasn't paint, it was chalk. Is the city of new york going to arrest a 7 year old for drawing with chalk on the sidewalk? Now logistically, this 7 year old would probably get run over from pedestrians..Is there maybe a law I don't know about that says you can't use nonpermanent chalk on a public sidewalk? I could understand maybe if it was indecent words but having a political opinion IMO, should not be punished.
As for it being vandalism you could call almost anything that has to do with protesting a criminal act. Carry a banner? Unlicensed advertising. Hold a sit in? Traffic disruption maybe even holding the people you are stopping against their will.
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.
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/
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.
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
That is about (quite possibly exceeding) the idiocy of the "Anyone But Bush" mentality. Here's an idea. Examine their policies and track record, and make an informed decision? Ironically, it is people such as yourself that have poisoned our political process with phony outrage over some perceived (and carefully constructed) cultural divide, and casting your vote as a big 'FUCK YOU' to the other side. Do you think this is original? It's the very heart of conservatism vs. liberalism for most Americans these days. The leadup to this election resembles a mindless sporting event with armchair quarterbacks yelling and screaming about the other teams fouls, accusing the referees of bias, and generally only caring that their side wins. "Bush/Cheny '04" and "LICK BUSH" stickers might as well be fan gear.
Sounds like China. The policeman knew there was
nothing wrong but a higher up party wonk told him
to arrest him anyway.
I'm sure he'll get off for this sooner or later, and that video will surely help. For one thing, I never saw the cops read him his Miranda rights. We'll see if they remember to do so before they start asking him questions. For another, it doesn't help them that they couldn't offer a simple reason for why he was being arrested, although I can see why they wouldn't want to say anything, especially to that crowd.
Neither of those things points to anything but embarrasing media coverage--coupled with the triviality of the actual events, and the fact that he was at an interview talking to Ron Reagan--well, I can't help but think that we'll be hearing more about this. If not, then there probably *is* some sort of 'Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy'. We'll see.
pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate.
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.
Forget that this guy got arrseted. I want one..for my car! Finally you can send a message to the guy behind you..
/. ::Digitac
!!!
OFF
BACK
3210
554-
(555)
me
Call
And of course:
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.
He, (either himself or by judge rule) take the time and responsibility to wash it off the street.
This fellow was making a political statement. The courts have held that political statements are the most protected of free-speech rights. The children are creating artistic expression of a unique and persusiave nature and Gulliford v Pierce County held that artistic expression of an individual is also among the free-speech rights, even if expressed in chalk. Commerical entities using chalk are making a non-political, non-individual, non-creative use of speech, and though I might disagree; the courts afford commercial speech less protection.
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?
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
.. in Boston, they caged the protesters before they had a chance to do anything... how's that for the freedoms of speech and assembly!
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.
So long as the government - in this case, NYC - does not regulate content, it can regulate the time, place, and manner of expression. The case law is well-settled on this, yet every time some radical group "protests" in some unlawful manner (again, T, P, & M) by shutting down a street or trespassing and hanging a banner on some building, they scream "First Amendment."
This is utter nonsense. The funny part is these groups almost always consult with First Amendment attorneys prior to their actions, so they know good and well that their conduct is illegal. Yet they still screech like scalded hogs when they get arrested for breaking the law. I say, great, carry the law breakers away in shackles. Most of the time, that's all part of the act, as in, "Look at me! I am being carted away by The Man for protesting!"
No you aren't idiot, and you know it. But it makes for good political theater.
Slashdot "libertarians": Small government for me, big government for those I disagree with. -1, I disagree with you
Try and derail the discussion by using slippery slop logic and exaggerating things to the extreme. Some examples from this story include "OMG they will arrest poor defenseless little girls for drawing in the stree!!!!1111!!" and "ON NOSE, CARRYING A 'BUSH T3H SUXX0RSSS!!!11' BANNER WILL GET ME ARRESTED!!oneOne111!!one!!!"
I am a Democrat and I don't like Bush, but lets look at this form the other end. Would you mind someone spraying in "chalk" that doesn't go away for two whole weeks pro-Bush/anti-Kerry propaganda on your home sidewalk, in front of your business, in the public park, etc? Or do you think that people should have the freedom of speech to print what ever they want on yours or others property as long as it goes away in about two weeks?
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.
First of all, this guy does no permanent damage to public property.
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.
Pragmatism as an ideology is not particularly pragmatic in the long term. Keep it in mind when you dismiss Free Software
the bike in action!7 -64417-iloveny_qt_hi,00.html
wired has a video:
http://www.wired.com/news/mediaplayer/0,2108,6441
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...
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
The poor pay more than 17% of the taxes. While it may be true that they only pay 17% of INCOME taxes the poor pay property tax, sales tax, gas tax, phone taxes and a host of other taxes.
It is playing word games when you say that the top 1/4 pay 73% of all taxes.
Scarry for someone like me who operates an Anti-Bush site.
Here comes the logic.
I can't stand everyone who is 'anti-Bush'. Why don't you devote your efforts to being pro-Kerry? I ask you, who do you think should be president, and you say, "Not Bush!". Well, Jerry Falwell is not Bush. Saddam Hussein is not Bush. Hell, I am not Bush, but I'll take the job, and I guarantee if you don't like Bush, you definitely won't like me.
This is the problem with simple negation. Sorry it had to come down on you, but there it is.
What if he was chalking the DeCSS code? Or maybe the Win2000 code?
Welcome to the land of the free...pay toll ahead...no photography...please open your bag...
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".
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"
Three points for you:
1. liberalism has been declared unconstitutional
2. fucks like me have been put into jail
3. your pride comes through load and clear Mr. AC
S-145.30: it was public property so this statute doesn't apply. read it again. 10-117: fine, got him. but the language of this is so broad that it does, in fact, apply to children drawing hopscotch squares on the street, and it isn't apples and oranges, at least in the eyes of this statute. your beef at the end seems to be with the method of delivery, but these statutes say nothing about that... so it sounds like you want to legislate on the fly, based on a perceived but non-codified distinction. that's not right. S 145.60: he used water soluble chalk, an indication that he was making an effort to do no damage whatsoever, and as such, this does not apply.
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?
Not only are you lying, but you didn't RTFA. It all happened in front of a news TV crew, amd he reporter stated how controlled and polite he was. Plus, there were no "cohorts".
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).
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
I used to work as a surveyor's assisstant and, as part of our job, we'd sraypaint things, including public roads and sidewalks. Obviously spraypainting public property is something that you can, and people do, get arrested for. Now us, however. The reason was two fold:
1) Scale. We made as little marks as possible. Just lines and arrows to indicate existance of power, gas, water, sewer, etc. We didn't go and draw a big picture all over the street and sidewalk.
2) Intent. The reason we did this was for the safety of workers. They needed to know if the dug in a certian spot, there was a gas line and to be careful to watch for it.
Thus I can see how both legally and morally this is different from kids drawing hopscotch fields. They are marking up a small area so they can play a game. He is marking up as much as he can to try and make people notice his message. He is advertising, really, though it is political in nature.
"I'm quite sure that four more years of Bush would suck. But what I'm not sure of is that four years of Kerry wouldn't suck more."
I guess that depends upon your personal goals and values. 4 years of Bush has been very good if you happen to benefit from his tax breaks and such.
If Kerry rolls back the tax cuts on the wealthiest, then 4 years of Kerry would be "worse" for them then 4 more years of Bush.
It isn't like Kerry's voting record is not publicly available.
"Unless someone is willing to at least do some minimal pro-Kerry arguing (i.e. "he's mediocre at worst"), then there's really no reason to vote for him."
Let me explain something to you.
Democracy only works when the voters EDUCATE THEMSELVES about the issues.
You want someone to convince you to vote for Kerry. Well, that's very nice for you. But how do you know that what that person tells you is factual?
Unless someone is willing to at least do some minimal pro-Kerry arguing (i.e. "he's mediocre at worst"), then there's really no reason to vote for him.
Well, I'm not pro-Kerry... and, I'm not anti-Bush.
But, I'd vote for anyone but Bush. (Including Saddam if you really want to froth at the mouth... he'd be better for America than Bush, IMHO.)
Why?
Simple.
To restore the checks and balances in the constitution.
Having all of the branches following the same music director has proven to be a very bad idea... it needs to stop.
So, I expect that the republicans will hold the congress... and I'll vote for not-republican in the White House.
And, if someone really bad... like Saddam... was in there, then I believe congress would effectively nuter him... as the president should be.
Actually, if the president veto'd every bill passed by congress...they'd basically have to compromise and pass with a veto proof margin... and congress blocked everything the president did (again by compromising and getting together in a veto proof manner)... we'd probably have the absolute best four years ever.
So... in a way... someone really nasty, like Saddam... would probably give us the best four years of gov't ever. By stalling everything!
--Phillip
Can you say BIRTH TAX
At protests around the U.S. in the last six years, the police have been actively employing preemptive arrest tactics, which have almost always have resulted in dismissals or "not guilty" decisions.
Not always of course, but much of the time (comparing numbers arrested against numbers inidicted and then convicted.)
Americans say they're for freedom of speech, but anytime a large, public act of communication takes place (mainly demonstrations for this point, but the implications are similar for pirate radio imo), there's always a government entity duly empowered to curb that expression, so that it doesn't have quite so strong the impact its creators put into it. For example, the FCC, appointed by the Executive, and the police and FBI, appointed by that jurisdiction's executive, or, in some cases, elected by the public (yet still a single human with much power over many.)
It's the imperfect, political humans controlling those speech-altering government entities who have the power, here, not the citizens. Too much power in the hands of too few. The U.S. is no longer a good model of a participative democracy. Look toward northern Europe for better examples of directly-involved citizens.
Big Daddy, Johnny, Burp, Aunt Zelda, Scott, Slurp, Big Momma
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.
the legal definition of "corporation" is given here. it says nothing about a corporation's right to levy taxes or to pass legally binding ordinances. while a city shares many traits of a corporation, it is not a corporation proper, but is a "municipal corporation," and its status under the law is much different than that of other corporations. i'm sure there is a law in place to address what this guy did (in fact, you found it, it's the next in your list!), but this one ain't it. i said nothing about it being okay because it was public property, i just said this particular law doesn't apply.
as for my house and what gets chalked on it, therein lies the distinction. it's MY house. this man did what he did in public space. also, you bring up the definition of damage, so let's run with that: 1.loss of value? nope. it's just chalk, and it washes away. 2.impairment of usefulness? nope, unless it's some crazy kind of chalk i've never seen, you can still walk on it.
as for your point that this is an issue of enforcement, not necessarily letter of the law legality, makes me have two thoughts: first, why have such poorly written laws that their applicability is up to the personal judgement of the guy with the gun? isn't that what codified law is intended to avoid? and second, if a child playing hopscotch outside their home is given wide leeway, why isn't political speech outside of a political convention? it seems to me that this, of all places, is where if it were going to happen, it should happen.
145.30 applies to advertisements, which are (less-protected) commercial speech.
10-117, as the section title indicates, applies to paint, markers, and etching acid, all *permanent* forms of graffiti.
This is not a commercial advertisement and moreover, it doesn't deface or damage anything. Neither Kinsberg or the hopscotch kids are in violation (technically or otherwise) of the law.
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.
I'm kindof tired of being lumped in with the "anybody but Bush" crowd.
More correctly I'm with the "anybody but a poli-fucking-tician" crowd.
Untrustworthy, lying, scheming, self-agrandizing SOB's the lot of them.
I mean really, my choices are a "c" student and someone who can't be bothered to show up to work?
Cripes! This is supposed to be the greatest country on earth and THIS?!!? is the best we can come up with??? I'd rather vote for the guy who runs the corner store.
ironically, you're anti-anti-bush people. Why can't you simply be pro-bush. Why do you have to rain down upon the anti-bush crowd with your anti-anti-bush agenda. :-)
because I have been enjoined by this Holy Office to abandon the false opinion which maintains that the Sun is the centre
Of all of the freedoms that people in the United States of America enjoy, perhaps the freedom of speech is the most important. Of all forms of speech, perhaps the most important is "political speech."
Why? Because if we can't speak out against our government, we can't effect change. We end up with an oppressive government. If there is one right that sets a free country apart it is our right to agree or disagree with those in power. While there are obvious limits to other kinds of speech (you can't yell fire in a crowded theater) there really can't be the same kinds of limits to political speech in our free society (with perhaps the exception of slander/libel).
This freedom extends to such unpopular organizations as the KKK - and is what gives them the right to speak their unpopular brand of politics. It extends to every man, woman, and child regardless of their political persuasion and it trumps the rights of others who may disagree (ie the NAACP can not stop the KKK from disseminating their hate, nor can the KKK quell the NAACP from their rights to speak against the KKK).
As I've just demonstrated, the right to political speech can sometimes be uncomfortable but it is the right of every citizen of the United States.
Still, if it can be proven that using degradable, water soluble, organic chalk is a form of vandalism then perhaps the police had a right to detain and confiscate but according to the article that is not what has happened. Right now it seems like the NYC Police are acting as agents for the RNC and simply limiting this man's right to free speech.
That is un-American and unconstitutional! Not to mention unconscionable.
The reason is that many of us really would vote for anyone else. I was anti-Bush, starting with just about the first thing he did in office, and pretty much every thing since then has pushed me more in that direction.
I am independent and vote either republican and democrat or even 3rd party, depending on the candidate, but this time the democrats could have run any of their candidates and I'd vote for him. I'd vote for a damn sock puppet right now if it had a chance of getting GWB out of office. I believe him to be a menace to the U.S.; he's done much harm to the country, I hope not irrepairable. I can't see why anyone who wants the U.S. to do well would want him in office for another 4 years. The democrats would have to run Beelzebub himself to get me to vote for GWB.
Yeah, go ahead and mod this -1 flamebait, happens every time I voice this opinion. But in this case I am just answering the question.
Doesn't compare to Iraq.
Dozens of Americans were killed in Bosnia, and what do we have to show for it? The Europeon countries for whom we took this action -- shed this blood, sacrificed a Cabinet Secretary -- have proven they will not reciprocate. We cannot build or use military facilities in Bosnia.
We have nothing to show for our work in Bosnia. We are left with the conclusion that President Clinton's actions were simply to distract from his dishonorable domestic conduct. Readers are encouraged to rent and view this documentary.
On the other hand, for the cost of a thousand American soldiers (and a hundred billion Iraqi babies!!!), have created an ally in the middle of the Middle East. We have a great big unsinkable aircraft carrier. We have a California-size staging area for further pacifications.
In other words, we have a whole new country to show for our work. Pretty damn impressive!
And the only pinheads who think it was a "distraction" from the War on Terror have not heard of the Abu Nidal Organization or the Salman Pak training camp.
Of the socialist ANO, the Federation of American Scientists says, "Has received considerable support, including safehaven, training, logistic assistance, and financial aid from Iraq, Libya, and Syria (until 1987), in addition to close support for selected operations." (emphasis added to make it perfectly clear that Iraq supported terrorists) Of special relevance is Libya -- whose capitulation in the War on Terror was a direct result of the action in Iraq.
Like the song says,
If you want a President who kicks ass, vote Republican.
If you want a President who kisses ass, vote Democrat.
If you want a President who is an ass, vote Green.
If you want a President who will let you buy ass, vote Libertarian.
The "news cycle" makes it difficult to get any attention unless you do something novel and/or dangerous. Greenpeace is well known precisely because they are grandstanding nutjobs.
Sometimes seventeen/Syllables aren't enough to/Express a complete
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.
Yes he is smart. Don't you think this is the best publicity you can get? MSNBC wants to talk to him and wham he's arrested. You can't buy publicity like that. He'll be getting phone calls for weeks and months after this!
Even the arresting officer agreed that this wasn't defacement.
Quote from the article:
"When Kinberg showed the police sergeant how the bicycle used a non-permanent spray chalk, the sergeant seemed to agree that it wasn't defacement, at which point Kinberg asked, "am I free to go?" After conferring about it, officers decided to call superiors, then came back moments later to place Kinberg under arrest and confiscate the bicycle."
And from bikesagainstbush.com:
"Bikes Against Bush will utilize a water-soluble chalk mixture. It is the same material used for marking athletic fields. It is environmentally safe and removes easily with water, or naturally biodegrades within 15-30 days. Thus, while the messages may have the appearance of graffiti, this is certainly not an attempt to damage or deface property."
perl -le 's;;uoli;;$a=length;y;g-w;e-u;;$a--;s;j;$a;;print'
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...
My site: Free Nature Pictures
"A child molester lives here" is libel. Try again with something that would violate only the law you're trying to talk about.
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
Commercial speech != political speech!
Rubbish. This is along the same lines as CBS's "we don't take advocacy ads" -- but beer ads ARE advocacy ads (they advocate that you drink a particular beer).
Commercial speech quite frequently is political speech. When ADM has commercials that indicate "we feed the world" -- that is political. Absolutely no way do they really feed the world. What they are intending to do is leave you with the impression that they are good guys. Therefore any bills before Congress are "to help feed the world" -- and ADM got a LOT of money out of Congress (but as a rancher I didn't see one freakin' dime).
Anyone who buys the "commercial speech ain't political speech" is living in the past. How many flags popped up in ads after 9/11? How many of these companies are actually NOT American companies (give you a hint: think Bermuda). How many companies tried to link themselves to the heroes of 9/11? I saw everthing from phone companies to soft drink. Not political?!?
Only a simpleton would believe commercial speech is not political.
Feloneous (a Texan who actually has a brain)
IANAL, but I've seen actors play them on TV
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.
Would have won unless the "stray mark" votes were counted. They were removed on a technicality (as "Gore" was punctured, and then written in on the write-in area), but under Florida law should have been counted because the intent of the voter was clear and unmistakable. So, if all of the votes were counted by the constraints of the law (as the Republicans demanded when the absentee ballot was raised), Gore would have won Florida. This was the conclusion of the independent media-funded recount.
-=-=-=-=-=
I'd rather be flamed than ignored.
Cops have 48 hours to charge you before your right of Habeas Corpus have been violated.
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.
I thought it was interesting how the NY Post described the incident with Josh and his bike:
"A 35-year-old man was arrested for using a convoluted spray-paint mechanism to deface city streets.
Riding a bike and carrying a laptop computer that was programmed to propel spray-paint on the street, Joshua Kinsberg inked the words "America is a free-speech zone" around downtown.
He was arrested for criminal mischief. "
No where does it say anything about it being water soluble chalk, which I think bascially dictates/spears the legality of what he is doing. When someone says "spray paint", I believe most people would simply imagine permanent spay paint... not chalk. That slant takes him from grey area activist to black ink vandal.
Hmmm... ok then, how about "Political speech is not commercial speech" instead?
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
$5 / month hosted VPS on linux = awesome!
Hmmm... Sounds like we need someone with some common sense and is likable but NOT a politician.
Think maybe we could get Jon Stewart? Sure, he tends to be left-leaning (hey, every man has the right to an opinion), but he tends to be fair, none-the-less, has charisma, and, most importantly, has made a career on mocking politicians.
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" 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: 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.
Human genome = 3 billion base pairs = 6 GBit. Windows + Office = 20 Gbit. Which is more impressive?
Ah. Yes, I agree completely. I thought we were talking about injuring property, not people.
I'd like to thank you, M. Silver, you've given me an opportunity to seriously rethink my moral system, and I've come up with something which may help to explain where I'm coming from.
I think our difference of opinion arises from the fact that you believe in the concept of "property rights," whereas I do not. I must admit, I am prejudiced: I have a prejudice against inanimate objects. I do not assign them any inherent moral worth. This is in sharp contrast to the typical propertarian view, which assigns moral worth to objects relative to their "owner."
I assign moral worth to objects based on their function, as defined in relationship to living organisms. Objects have positive moral worth to the extent that they benefit living organisms, and negative moral worth to the extent that they harm them.
Because of this difference, it has been very difficult for me to translate your argument into terms that make sense in my value system. However, your above statement clarifies it completely, and you have a valid point. Certainly it is immoral to impar the overall function of an object, that is, to transform an object in such a way that it benefits living organisms less or harms them more.
So then the question becomes: does a coffee shop (for example) benefit living organisms more or less if it has "STOP BUSH" written on it?
This question separates the moral issue completely from what I view as the false right of "private property." Now we can talk about it in terms that make sense to me.
So now we have to determine to what extent the words "STOP BUSH" written on the coffee shop decrease its benefit to people in allowing its operators to sell coffee and make a living, and allowing its customers to buy coffee which they enjoy. We also have to determine whether the words "STOP BUSH" written on the coffee shop will actually have any effect on the presidential campaign.
Now, there's a pretty good case to be made that the answer to both questions is "not much." Most New Yorkers will probably not stop buying coffee at their favorite coffee shop simply because it has "STOP BUSH" written on it. Most people are not going to vote against Bush just because they saw "STOP BUSH" written on a coffee shop. So really, the moral impact of this action is pretty negligible either way, probably not even worth arguing over.
Now, within this tiny realm of moral discrepancy, there is room for argument. So if you can convince me that the negative impact of the graffitti on the business will be greater than the negative impact of the graffitti on the Bush campaign, then I will agree that the act is immoral.
There is also a general issue here. I think that if you impair the function of an object (whether it "belongs to you" or not), you have a moral obligation to repair that function. So if the graffitti does harm the shopkeeper's business, it is the moral obligation of the person who wrote it to clean it up, or to pay the shopkeeper to have it cleaned up. That is why vandalism should be illegal, and I think people should not do jail time for it, but they should be required to pay restitution.
are you a college student?
LOL. No, I am not, I'm 31 years old and left graduate school four years ago. But I can see why you ask. Disrespect for property rights is common among college students because they don't own much property. As people age and accumulate more property, their respect for property rights tends to increase. In my case, I doubt I will ever recognize the legitimacy of property rights, regardless of how much property I "own."
My site: Free Nature Pictures