Path: ...!feeds.phibee-telecom.net!2.eu.feeder.erje.net!feeder.erje.net!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail From: Robin Miller Newsgroups: rec.arts.tv Subject: Re: [OT] Teens face 10 years in prison for riding over pride flag on bicycles Date: Sun, 23 Jun 2024 16:41:09 -0400 Lines: 107 Message-ID: References: <20240623122747.000055ed@example.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: individual.net Fy9ADm0WuOfVEY3HR9BPFgeaEff2nbnYPWpyucj4BroBtATyKq Cancel-Lock: sha1:QCyXk78llWzO90R6R/cngKOyTAo= sha256:/uwFY473Jhq/XdkUNp+plOu6L2wb4SIOSMG6TaQ6eSE= User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/91.0 SeaMonkey/2.53.18.2 In-Reply-To: Bytes: 6398 Adam H. Kerman wrote: > suzeeq wrote: >> On 6/23/2024 11:27 AM, Adam H. Kerman wrote: >>> Robin Miller wrote: >>>> Adam H. Kerman wrote: >>>>> Rhino wrote: >>> >>>>>> Leo Kearse, the presenter of this video, is correct: the rules of the >>>>>> Alphabet Mafia have taken on the feel of blasphemy laws in the Muslim >>>>>> countries. This is particularly evident in the horrendous overcharging >>>>>> of three Spokane teens for riding over a local pride flag on bicycles: >>> >>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VtS-c4nPJtQ [`12 minutes] >>> >>>>> Overcharging? It wasn't even a crime to ride their bicyles in the first >>>>> place! >>> >>>>> I love how the video clip of the interview of the lesbian witness shows >>>>> an automobile driving over the very same painted pavement as we see over >>>>> her right shoulder. I didn't see the felony arrest. >>> >>>>> It appears that what we have here is a case of bullying children because >>>>> that's what we can get away with. >>> >>>> Every day this NG is filled with examples of why it's become such a >>>> cesspool. >>> >>>> Here is a news story and the police statement: >>> >>>> >> https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/teens-arrested-after-scooters-leave-marks-on-pride-crosswalk/ar-BB1nSroe >>> >>>> >> https://my.spokanecity.org/police/news/2024/06/06/multiple-arrests-make-after-downtown-pride-mural-is-vandalized/ >>> >>>> This happened on June 5, 18 days ago, but is now being widely shared on >>>> right-wing media. These kids were repeatedly riding over an area >>>> described as a "street mural" in order to deface it. The area had >>>> recently been repainted after someone else had intentionally damaged it >>>> using a flammable liquid. The area, according to the police statement, >>>> was "clearly marked to keep traffic away as it was just re-painted to >>>> repair previous damage." >>> >>>> These kids should have been arrested if they were intentionally damaging >>>> anything painted on the street as a street mural. And if it had been a >>>> US flag I doubt anyone would be complaining. >>> >>>> While the kids were charged with 1st Degree Malicious Mischief, a class >>>> B felony for which the maximum sentence is 10 years, of course they >>>> would not receive anything like that even if they are convicted. They >>>> would probably be put on probation. >>> >>> In advance of pride parades in Chicago and various suburbs, the parade >>> routes are lined with decorations installed temporarily on municipal >>> lightpoles. That can be done with permission in a way that enforcing >>> laws against vandalism of the decorations as crimes doesn't violate equal >>> protection of the right to free speech. >>> >>> I'm going to continue to disagree. This is a matter of government >>> restrictions on free speech. The mural, an act of expression, is the free >>> speech of the artists who painted it. They had permission. However, as it >>> was painted on a driving surface of an open roadway in the public way, >>> that permission cannot possibly prohibit someone else from driving over >>> it, even if the way it was driven over defaced the mural. >>> >>> Free speech in the public way is a natural right, not a privilege that the >>> city of Spokane may selectively grant to the artists precluding the free >>> speech of those who disagree. It's also a civil right in the Constitution >>> of the United States. Therefore, the criminal charges are a denial of >>> equal protection of a civil right. >>> >>> As a secondary matter, a mural painted on a driving surface in the >>> public way IS NOT a painted marking as a traffic control device based on >>> the Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices, a standard published by >>> FHwA as promulgated by AASHTO. Now, it doesn't have the force of law and >>> I'm not sure of its status as a federal regulation (to the extent that >>> the standard is adopted in a given state, it is a state regulation that >>> local public works departments must implement), but it's always a >>> defense to citation of a traffic violation that signs and markings were >>> knocked over, misplaced, installed incorrectly, or worn out that the >>> driver had no notice of the condition being enforced. >>> >>> Similarly, the boys should be able to use the fact of the nonstandard >>> pavement marking as a defense against the felony charge. >>> >>> All I saw in the video were traffic violations that would have been >>> proper charges, not crimes to be charged. >>> >> Wouldn't it be a deliberate act of vandalism, though? > > The artists don't have a property right in painting a driving surface of > an open roadway in the public way. Without a property right, I don't see > how it's vandalism. The guy who set fire to the mural certainly > committed a criminal act, not vandalism of the mural but vandalism of > the roadway surface. > Burning a privately-owned flag is an act of expression. Burning a flag attached to a government building is a criminal act. This mural was authorized by the governmental authorities and therefore became part of the roadway surface. Intentionally defacing the mural is therefore a criminal act. --Robin