Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!reader5.news.weretis.net!news.solani.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: suzeeq 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 11:47:58 -0700 Message-ID: References: <20240623122747.000055ed@example.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Injection-Date: Sun, 23 Jun 2024 18:47:58 -0000 (UTC) Injection-Info: solani.org; logging-data="2170503"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@news.solani.org" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.2.1 Cancel-Lock: sha1:y3RzW0PgwUsXLkh/NyIbalWgYYI= X-User-ID: eJwNxtEVADEEBMCWrGClHI/Tfwm5+Ro/gWhaeJivL0aOl25egNSU/nRsaxj/y0Ht4jAvZ2HyAA2SEKI= In-Reply-To: Content-Language: en-US Bytes: 5577 Lines: 84 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?