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.
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.
Yeah, what passes for protest these days gets sillier and sillier. Everyone wants to enjoy their favorite hobby or passtime while engaging in protest against the evil dark lords. Too many airheads, too much time on their hands. What a horribly oppressed society we live in!
Latte sit-in for partial-birth abortion anyone?
Oh sure, first they take away our water-soluble chalk....then what's next? They take away all our guns! Then after that they take away all our freedoms and houses and SUV's and Bananna Republic stores where we get our "khakis"!!!
"Music is everybody's possession. It's only publishers who think that people own it." - John Lennon.
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.
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
\begin{sarcasm} your right...the country is so perfect there really aren't any reasons to dissent. Anyone who does is automatically a silly hippie. That is a well thought out philosohy on your part, congradulations. \end{sarcasm}
Torrent of the arrest.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
There are too many airheads. Unfortunately, my skeet shooting buddies for whatever reason, just don't feel comfortable having a skeet shooting protest against Bush.
So I'm going to try to get my model rocketry club to organize something.
Think for yourself, destroy your television.
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
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 first amendment is for protestors as the second amendment is for gun-rights advocates. sure, case law is well established, stating that free speech can be restricted on the basis of time, place, and manner, but should it be? the constituion is pretty straightforward about it: "no law... abridging the freedom of speech... or the right of the people peacably to assemble..." nothing there about time or place, and the only limit on manner is that it be 'peacably'. so, a time, place, and manner restriction sounds alot like an abridgement, and maybe it shouldn't be there.
we spent so much time in civics class learning about the constitution and how it has been passed down to today through amendments and court decisions, but we never really focused on the 'should haves' of those changes. saying something shouldn't be abridged is a strong statement, but it just gets glossed over as people are more and more willing to tolerate government interference because it serves them well in the short term.
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"
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?
So long as the government - in this case, NYC - does not regulate content, it can regulate the time, place, and manner of expression.
As long as they arrest people for writing political messages in chalk but not kids playing hopscotch or artists working with chalk, they are regulating content.
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
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.
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
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.
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!
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
You're screwed now, buddy -- you just used "shooting," "rocket," and "against Bush" in the same post!
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
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.
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.
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?