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

FrodosPet

(5,169 posts)
119. I hope the fine is HUGE!
Wed Sep 26, 2012, 10:30 PM
Sep 2012

And comes with a few hundred hours of scrubbing grafitti.

So do you think Repugs should get off scott free if they were to deface an Obama poster?

Should someone feel free to tag anything anywhere so long as it can be considered political?

The thing about civil disobedience, regardless of the merit, is that it entails consequences.

She sure seemed to hate that poster though... socialindependocrat Sep 2012 #1
I've often found that what "seems" to be, and what actually is, are quite often two wholly separate LanternWaste Sep 2012 #13
I am so ashamed... socialindependocrat Sep 2012 #15
Anything to say about the haters who are responsible for that poster at all? sabrina 1 Sep 2012 #65
she hated on a hateful poster.. frylock Sep 2012 #102
I think a reasonable argument can be made that if the action involves no_hypocrisy Sep 2012 #2
But if it's actually public property DLnyc Sep 2012 #42
Here's the rub: Somebody paid to put up that ad. no_hypocrisy Sep 2012 #67
no. here in LA occupiers were arrested for writing with chalk on the sidewalk. chalk! robinlynne Sep 2012 #115
Good on you, Mona!!! Scuba Sep 2012 #3
I would have probably done the same -- Hell Hath No Fury Sep 2012 #7
That is vandalism and is illegal ProgressiveProfessor Sep 2012 #11
Sometimes vandalism is the correct response to hate speech -- Hell Hath No Fury Sep 2012 #38
Correct response is not spray painting the speech of others including another person in the process ProgressiveProfessor Sep 2012 #48
I see this as an act of civil disobedience. Mona will pay her fine. Comrade Grumpy Sep 2012 #100
yep frylock Sep 2012 #105
I hope the fine is HUGE! FrodosPet Sep 2012 #119
whoop-dee-fucking-doo frylock Sep 2012 #104
This seems excessive. Defacing advertising in subway stations is common. Has been for decades. SleeplessinSoCal Sep 2012 #4
Still illegal vandalism ProgressiveProfessor Sep 2012 #12
This message was self-deleted by its author bupkus Sep 2012 #20
In *their* windows? Not by our standards no. 4th law of robotics Sep 2012 #34
This message was self-deleted by its author bupkus Sep 2012 #37
You asked if spraypainting over "jew" signs in their own windows 4th law of robotics Sep 2012 #40
This message was self-deleted by its author bupkus Sep 2012 #43
Right, which is why I clearly said by our standards 4th law of robotics Sep 2012 #45
Surely you can make up better strawmen than that ProgressiveProfessor Sep 2012 #49
The 1st Amendment does not protect property destruction. appal_jack Sep 2012 #5
This message was self-deleted by its author bupkus Sep 2012 #6
Really? Indydem Sep 2012 #9
This message was self-deleted by its author bupkus Sep 2012 #16
What if the billboard called Israel savage and said Support Palestine? oberliner Sep 2012 #17
This message was self-deleted by its author bupkus Sep 2012 #25
Why not? ProgressiveProfessor Sep 2012 #51
Because there's a double standard in America, PP. Scootaloo Sep 2012 #54
You need to read up and get some facts... ProgressiveProfessor Sep 2012 #58
Black Bloc don't much like the occupy movement do you? azurnoir Sep 2012 #64
There are other places to watch the video... ProgressiveProfessor Sep 2012 #68
yep I'll bet on that azurnoir Sep 2012 #90
I know the facts, thanks Scootaloo Sep 2012 #76
lol azurnoir Sep 2012 #91
No, no, no...haven't we been lectured that companies, organizations, etc are not 24601 Sep 2012 #117
No it would not at least IMO azurnoir Sep 2012 #60
There is a difference joeglow3 Sep 2012 #18
This message was self-deleted by its author bupkus Sep 2012 #23
Who gets to define "hate speech"? joeglow3 Sep 2012 #50
NO PROGRESSIVES ARE DEFENDING THE 1st Missycim Sep 2012 #21
This message was self-deleted by its author bupkus Sep 2012 #24
who gets to define what hate speech is? Missycim Sep 2012 #32
This message was self-deleted by its author bupkus Sep 2012 #41
THat is your right Missycim Sep 2012 #53
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
I have no idea if they are a hate group or not Missycim Sep 2012 #62
The names of the associated groups are at the bottom of the sign azurnoir Sep 2012 #70
I agree they aren't a very good group lol Missycim Sep 2012 #77
So if an atheist were to put up a sign that said, FrodosPet Sep 2012 #120
Actually, hate speech is indeed free speech. Whether we agree with that speech is another SlimJimmy Sep 2012 #55
Hate speech most certainly is free speech. nt Codeine Sep 2012 #113
Well, they just silenced the spray painter. Since EVERYTHING is 'speech' now, sabrina 1 Sep 2012 #81
why are you on the wrong side of every issue? snooper2 Sep 2012 #26
LOL... destroying someone else's property is not covered under the 1st Amendment... Comrade_McKenzie Sep 2012 #29
Keith Haring was a vandal? Who knew? closeupready Sep 2012 #33
This message was self-deleted by its author bupkus Sep 2012 #44
Umbrage if free, take all you want, but the vandal's actions were illegal ProgressiveProfessor Sep 2012 #47
these people aren't progressives by any stretch frylock Sep 2012 #106
Who sold the ad space? The Transit Authority? Kelvin Mace Sep 2012 #8
MTA fought it in court and lost ProgressiveProfessor Sep 2012 #10
The Transit Authority was forced to place them there by a judge ProudToBeBlueInRhody Sep 2012 #35
:face plam: Kelvin Mace Sep 2012 #39
During this there was also an altercation with a supporter of the poster ProgressiveProfessor Sep 2012 #14
If the poster supporter started the altercation, self-defense closeupready Sep 2012 #19
I watched the video ProgressiveProfessor Sep 2012 #46
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 think they rotate like those here at DU ProgressiveProfessor Sep 2012 #71
I watched the video, and being 100% honest, closeupready Sep 2012 #61
Do you think that she spay painted the counter protestor as well? ProgressiveProfessor Sep 2012 #69
Assault and battery, no. closeupready Sep 2012 #72
I do not agree with the part about a perp not being responsible for their actions if warning ProgressiveProfessor Sep 2012 #79
Culpability is shared. closeupready Sep 2012 #83
Not at all, I question the vandal's motives because of the set up with the media ProgressiveProfessor Sep 2012 #86
If I stare at you, that is not A&B. If I touch your shoulder in closeupready Sep 2012 #96
Prosecutors waste all sorts of time and public funds on bogus prosecutions ProgressiveProfessor Sep 2012 #98
I think that Gellers employee (according to Miller) azurnoir Sep 2012 #73
I commented on it earlier...though it may have been elsewhere now that I think about it ProgressiveProfessor Sep 2012 #78
She's an activist and a very dedicated one starroute Sep 2012 #22
Fascinating. I wonder even if she closeupready Sep 2012 #28
Good. That's vandalism. nt Comrade_McKenzie Sep 2012 #27
This message was self-deleted by its author bupkus Sep 2012 #30
Good God, this place is silly. It was an act of civil disobedience. Comrade Grumpy Sep 2012 #101
It will most likely include restitution to the very people she was hating on. ProgressiveProfessor Sep 2012 #108
Yeah, 50 cents to replace that poster is gonna make Pam Geller's day. Comrade Grumpy Sep 2012 #110
It would, even if it is just symbolic. I really see both sides as drama queens at this point ProgressiveProfessor Sep 2012 #114
I doubt it 4th law of robotics Sep 2012 #31
I support Eltahawy's act of Civil Disobedience. bluedigger Sep 2012 #36
Including what looks like assaulting a counter protestor with paint? ProgressiveProfessor Sep 2012 #52
That isn't what I see. bluedigger Sep 2012 #74
Spray painting people, even if they get in your way while you are doing something illegal, is also ProgressiveProfessor Sep 2012 #80
Then she must be satisfied with the actions taken. bluedigger Sep 2012 #109
But more dramatic for both sides if there is a criminal complaint ProgressiveProfessor Sep 2012 #112
I might have done it too mitchtv Sep 2012 #63
I thought the OP read she was marrying the ad darkangel218 Sep 2012 #56
As long as the ad consents, what's the problem? closeupready Sep 2012 #66
Aparently the ad didnt consent so she's in jail now darkangel218 Sep 2012 #75
I knew I wasn't the only one n/t Duer 157099 Sep 2012 #85
Brava Mona! countryjake Sep 2012 #82
I'm wondering now if the "fighting words" doctrine closeupready Sep 2012 #84
Probably not, but it doesn't matter, anyway... countryjake Sep 2012 #87
I am sure she know how to throw a media event... ProgressiveProfessor Sep 2012 #88
Whatever it takes to expose the Islamophobia! countryjake Sep 2012 #93
Making it a media event the way she did, leads me question to her motives ProgressiveProfessor Sep 2012 #95
"the vandal" ????????? countryjake Sep 2012 #97
Yes...what was done was vandalism ProgressiveProfessor Sep 2012 #99
Yes, it was vandalism. Much more importantly, it was an act of civil disobediance. Comrade Grumpy Sep 2012 #103
Only spots I know of who slime Mona with nasty terms like... countryjake Sep 2012 #107
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
War doesn't have rules Shitty Mitty Sep 2012 #111
If she created the work she defaced it would be protected performance art onenote Sep 2012 #94
video here riverwalker Sep 2012 #116
Why resort to vandalism? There are so many legal ways to protest the ads. Nye Bevan Sep 2012 #118
It was set up as a media event ProgressiveProfessor Sep 2012 #121
Latest Discussions»Latest Breaking News»Woman arrested for marrin...»Reply #119