Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: moviePig 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 18:28:08 -0400 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 124 Message-ID: References: <20240623122747.000055ed@example.com> Reply-To: nobody@nowhere.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Injection-Date: Mon, 24 Jun 2024 00:28:09 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="096f305d39733c50ae6b0e2ad89e1be7"; logging-data="580463"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18ly8f8FLAIzIUHLQmin1HU8CKuKbeIZJc=" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Cancel-Lock: sha1:vFmLNSrmn95OrZbzBBJn/p2AaHo= In-Reply-To: Content-Language: en-US Bytes: 7688 On 6/23/2024 5:54 PM, Adam H. Kerman wrote: > Robin Miller wrote: >> 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. > > Not all government land is public way for the purpose of speech rights, > and of course you cannot burn someone else's property as an expressive > act of free speech. That's vandalism. > > I already said if the decorations erected on streetlights in advance of > a pride parade were desecrated, that's an act of vandalism and not > expressive free speech. > >> 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. > > You're not considering that it's the public way. You can't give one > person the privilege of free speech in the public way exclusive of > someone else's speech. If applying the paint was an expressive act of > free speech in the public way where everyone may use it, then removing > the paint was similarly speech. Perhaps you can't give it to them permanently, but you should be able to give it to them for a reasonable fixed period of time ...just as you can allow a political group to convene on public land.