Occupy Protester has been in jail for the last three weeks for writing on the sidewal

[Odysseus]

Fucking librullsss

There is a huge difference between a depiction of a nude and Karen Finley's insertion of yams into various orifices and then eating them. If you can't see it, then I truly feel sorry for you and your stunted sense of aesthetics.

[Arroyo_Doble]

There is a huge difference between a depiction of a nude and Karen Finley's insertion of yams into various orifices and then eating them. If you can't see it, then I truly feel sorry for you and your stunted sense of aesthetics.

Who?

[ABC in Georgia]

There is a huge difference between a depiction of a nude ... etc.

Oh Mercy!

Um ... um ... now I forget what I came in to say!

What was the subject again?

~ Auntie Mame :p :p :p

[ABC in Georgia]

Sorry Ody ...

The devil made me do it! :eek: :D

In reality, I agree with you in here.

~ ABC

[Odysseus]

Who?

Karen Finley. A "performance artist" who used to cover herself in chocolate while ranting about men crapping on women. and inserted yams into various orifices and then ate them. She was one of the NEA grant recipients that almost got the program derailed, and would have if the left hadn't gone berserk over the threat of the federal government not paying for "art".

Sorry Ody ...

The devil made me do it! :eek: :D

In reality, I agree with you in here.

~ ABC

I know. And it was a good post. It's always fun when a genteel lady gets a case of the vapors over something like that. I'll get the smelling salts, you just relax. :D

[Novaheart]

So this person was Constitutionally protected to deface public property?

The operative particular in this discussion is that the medium was chalk on a public sidewalk. The temporary nature of it makes a difference. So no, he isn't categorically protected to deface public property, but he might be protected in making a temporary statement in a common medium or practice like chalking the sidewalk.

Example- there are sand sculptors who create their works on the public beach at Treasure Island. They often put a little sign in front of the sculpture like "Jesus praying at Gethsemane". The police do not prosecute these people, even though it might be in violation of a littering or signage law. So if a political artist sculpts four bodies in the sand and puts a sign up that says, "The cops kill people." to take any action against him, would be an attack on political speech.

[Novaheart]

Before you sound off about arresting others, people speed all day. There just aren't enough patrol officers to catch them all. However, the cop has to pick and choose who to pull over. There isn't anything nefarious about it. They can't catch everyone but they can catch some.

There is if there is an illegal reason for his choice of whom to pull over. The fact that the police may not have ever enforced the law applied to chalking a public sidewalk previously doesn't mean that they can apply it with the intent of stopping political speech.

[Novaheart]

.............piffle..............

The city dropped the charges and didn't re-arrest him. Are they now selectively non-enforcing? Surely they have the manpower to drive by city hall and see the sidewalk chalkers in action. Or perhaps they realized they were about to be bitchslapped?

[Adam Wood]

The operative particular in this discussion is that the medium was chalk on a public sidewalk. The temporary nature of it makes a difference. So no, he isn't categorically protected to deface public property, but he might be protected in making a temporary statement in a common medium or practice like chalking the sidewalk.

Cool. So, I can come along and pelt your home with every imaginable form of feces that I can find. After all, it's not permanent. You can wash that off just fine. It's only temporary. And I'm making a statement by hurling turds at your house, so my "speech" is protected there to the exclusion of your property rights.

[NJCardFan]

The operative particular in this discussion is that the medium was chalk on a public sidewalk. The temporary nature of it makes a difference. So no, he isn't categorically protected to deface public property, but he might be protected in making a temporary statement in a common medium or practice like chalking the sidewalk.

Example- there are sand sculptors who create their works on the public beach at Treasure Island. They often put a little sign in front of the sculpture like "Jesus praying at Gethsemane". The police do not prosecute these people, even though it might be in violation of a littering or signage law. So if a political artist sculpts four bodies in the sand and puts a sign up that says, "The cops kill people." to take any action against him, would be an attack on political speech.

I'll remember that if someone makes a sand sculpture or sidewalk chalk art of God damning gays to hell. Something tells me your tune will be somewhat different.