Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Latest Breaking News
In reply to the discussion: Woman arrested for marring anti-jihad NY subway ad [View all]ProgressiveProfessor
(22,144 posts)112. But more dramatic for both sides if there is a criminal complaint
At this point I see both sides as drama queens looking for coverage. It will be interesting to see if a criminal complaint gets filed. Even if nothing comes of it, it would have PR value, gain for both sides.
Normally in a vandalism charge there are restitution fees to the property owner. That would be ironic in this case
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
121 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
I've often found that what "seems" to be, and what actually is, are quite often two wholly separate
LanternWaste
Sep 2012
#13
no. here in LA occupiers were arrested for writing with chalk on the sidewalk. chalk!
robinlynne
Sep 2012
#115
Correct response is not spray painting the speech of others including another person in the process
ProgressiveProfessor
Sep 2012
#48
This seems excessive. Defacing advertising in subway stations is common. Has been for decades.
SleeplessinSoCal
Sep 2012
#4
No, no, no...haven't we been lectured that companies, organizations, etc are not
24601
Sep 2012
#117
But this is not abouut a movie it is about a known hate group that was allowed to put ba sign
azurnoir
Sep 2012
#57
Actually, hate speech is indeed free speech. Whether we agree with that speech is another
SlimJimmy
Sep 2012
#55
Well, they just silenced the spray painter. Since EVERYTHING is 'speech' now,
sabrina 1
Sep 2012
#81
LOL... destroying someone else's property is not covered under the 1st Amendment...
Comrade_McKenzie
Sep 2012
#29
Umbrage if free, take all you want, but the vandal's actions were illegal
ProgressiveProfessor
Sep 2012
#47
During this there was also an altercation with a supporter of the poster
ProgressiveProfessor
Sep 2012
#14
well let's take a gander at it but folks don't miss the anti-Obama ad that is attached to Calos's
azurnoir
Sep 2012
#59
I do not agree with the part about a perp not being responsible for their actions if warning
ProgressiveProfessor
Sep 2012
#79
Not at all, I question the vandal's motives because of the set up with the media
ProgressiveProfessor
Sep 2012
#86
Prosecutors waste all sorts of time and public funds on bogus prosecutions
ProgressiveProfessor
Sep 2012
#98
I commented on it earlier...though it may have been elsewhere now that I think about it
ProgressiveProfessor
Sep 2012
#78
It will most likely include restitution to the very people she was hating on.
ProgressiveProfessor
Sep 2012
#108
It would, even if it is just symbolic. I really see both sides as drama queens at this point
ProgressiveProfessor
Sep 2012
#114
Including what looks like assaulting a counter protestor with paint?
ProgressiveProfessor
Sep 2012
#52
Spray painting people, even if they get in your way while you are doing something illegal, is also
ProgressiveProfessor
Sep 2012
#80
But more dramatic for both sides if there is a criminal complaint
ProgressiveProfessor
Sep 2012
#112
Making it a media event the way she did, leads me question to her motives
ProgressiveProfessor
Sep 2012
#95
Yes, it was vandalism. Much more importantly, it was an act of civil disobediance.
Comrade Grumpy
Sep 2012
#103
if someone was defacing hateful anti-Semitic ads posted in nyc subway stations - I wonder how many
Douglas Carpenter
Sep 2012
#89
I wonder how many DU'ers would be telling others to "Have a nice shower."
Behind the Aegis
Sep 2012
#92