Yes, you read that right: finally, someone is going to jail for what the banks did! If this seems like it is too good to be true, Wonketeers, your instincts are correct because the person who is FINALLY going to jail is not anyone associated with the banks, but rather, a man who wrote mean words about banks on the sidewalk in San Diego.
Good. Fuck the Mt Soledad Easter Cross and all the fuckers who think it should be just peachy because we're a Christian nation. {Note: We are not. We are a non-religious democratic republic that happens to have an excessive population of alleged Christians)..
Sorry, what the judge did by prohibiting references to the First Amendment is bullshit. That's all. Just bullshit. If the prosecutor doesn't get his ass handed to him, the judge will.
I am not defending vandalism, but this is fucking sidewalk chalk we're talking about.
Carving statements into your neighbor's cranium is an example of the narrowly defined kind of free speech that is not protected because of a greater harm--normally articulated as "crying fire in a crowded theater," per Oliver Wendell Holmes.
Carving statements into your neighbor's cranium is exactly what the defendant is not doing; he is writing in chalk on a public sidewalk. Setting aside the dubious argument that this may be vandalism, it is pretty clearly not the kind of free speech that is trumped by harm. The harm is to the bank, which is subject to criticism, which is highly protected speech--pretty much the most protected kind there is.
Here's a scenario that's the closest thing I can think of that might help your argument: the Ku Klux Klan repeatedly visits the home of a black family and writes racist statements about them in chalk on the public sidewalk, month after month.
Wonketteers would certainly support a prosecution of the Klansmen, but the charge would be intimidation and harassment, not vandalism. (Burning a cross on someone's lawn is not protected speech.) If the bank's employees had expressed a feeling of danger in the workplace from the presence of the graffiti, there might be a case. But my guess is that the employees were secretly cheering the guy on.
Sometimes the chalkers win. (From Dewey's linked article).
In cases where chalking arrests have gone to court, however, some judges have sided with the chalkers. In 1992, Christopher Mackinney was arrested in Berkeley, Calif.,* for using chalk to write: "A police state is more expensive than a welfare state—we guarantee it!" He sued the department for false arrest, and the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that his case could move forward because no reasonable officer could have assumed that Mackinney violated the state's vandalism law.
More recently, in Florida, Occupy Orlando protester Timothy Osmar, who spent 18 days in jail for chalking, won a free speech case against the city and received $6,000 in damages. The case ended up costing the city $190,000 in legal fees—validation, perhaps, for Mackinney's claim that maintaining a police state can be rather expensive.
Is it common, though, for the judge to be "admonishing San Diego Mayor Bob Filner for chiming in on the topic" ? (Seeing from that Consumerist post that only the parties involved in the lawsuit are covered by the gag order, I still woudn't think that the mayor voicing an opinion about an ongoing case could be seen as "irresponsible.")
Yes, surely the free speech issue has to do not with whether chalk counts as vandalism but whether the law is being applied selectively to silence criticism.
Unless, of course, the city of San Diego can demonstrate that they routinely arrest and prosecute hopscotch players.
Judge Howard Shore is apparently a go-to judge in San Diego for foolish conservatives seeking to do a bit of social engineering through the courts. From Daily Kos:
"Jackson was the former operator of the San Diego medical marijuana dispensary Answerdam Alternative Care Collective. It was the second trial in less than a year for Jackson, who was arrested in a multi-agency law enforcement raid in September 2009. Jacksonwas acquitted by a jury in December of marijuana possession and distribution charges stemming from a 2008 arrest. This time, however, District Attorney Bonnie Dumanis convinced Superior Court Judge Howard H. Shore to deny Jackson a medical marijuana defense, virtually assuring a conviction."
Apparently, he has the discretion to be an ass.
Good. Fuck the Mt Soledad Easter Cross and all the fuckers who think it should be just peachy because we're a Christian nation. {Note: We are not. We are a non-religious democratic republic that happens to have an excessive population of alleged Christians)..
Sorry, what the judge did by prohibiting references to the First Amendment is bullshit. That's all. Just bullshit. If the prosecutor doesn't get his ass handed to him, the judge will.
I am not defending vandalism, but this is fucking sidewalk chalk we're talking about.
Are you a veteran or spawn of one? Join USAA. Do you live anywhere near Santa Clara County, CA? Join TechCU.
Both of these have splendid online interfaces. (Decades of personal experience).
I have to believe that these two are not the only high-quality options out there. All I can suggest is look around a little more.
BTW, my mortgage is serviced (after a few bankruptcies) by "OneWest Bank." Their user interface is adequate, Barely.
Oh great, he's not just a dickhead, he's a prosecution-biased dickhead.
San Diegans, please try to hold this thought: Whenever this fuck comes up for re-election, vote for his opponent. Please.
You know, I bought that argument in 2007-8. Now, I don't care.
Carving statements into your neighbor's cranium is an example of the narrowly defined kind of free speech that is not protected because of a greater harm--normally articulated as "crying fire in a crowded theater," per Oliver Wendell Holmes.
Carving statements into your neighbor's cranium is exactly what the defendant is not doing; he is writing in chalk on a public sidewalk. Setting aside the dubious argument that this may be vandalism, it is pretty clearly not the kind of free speech that is trumped by harm. The harm is to the bank, which is subject to criticism, which is highly protected speech--pretty much the most protected kind there is.
Here's a scenario that's the closest thing I can think of that might help your argument: the Ku Klux Klan repeatedly visits the home of a black family and writes racist statements about them in chalk on the public sidewalk, month after month.
Wonketteers would certainly support a prosecution of the Klansmen, but the charge would be intimidation and harassment, not vandalism. (Burning a cross on someone's lawn is not protected speech.) If the bank's employees had expressed a feeling of danger in the workplace from the presence of the graffiti, there might be a case. But my guess is that the employees were secretly cheering the guy on.
Someone needs to go all Banksy on BOA's ass.
Sometimes the chalkers win. (From Dewey's linked article).
In cases where chalking arrests have gone to court, however, some judges have sided with the chalkers. In 1992, Christopher Mackinney was arrested in Berkeley, Calif.,* for using chalk to write: "A police state is more expensive than a welfare state—we guarantee it!" He sued the department for false arrest, and the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that his case could move forward because no reasonable officer could have assumed that Mackinney violated the state's vandalism law.
More recently, in Florida, Occupy Orlando protester Timothy Osmar, who spent 18 days in jail for chalking, won a free speech case against the city and received $6,000 in damages. The case ended up costing the city $190,000 in legal fees—validation, perhaps, for Mackinney's claim that maintaining a police state can be rather expensive.
Does that involve taking the money and stuffing it into a pocket while performing somersaults?
Is it common, though, for the judge to be "admonishing San Diego Mayor Bob Filner for chiming in on the topic" ? (Seeing from that Consumerist post that only the parties involved in the lawsuit are covered by the gag order, I still woudn't think that the mayor voicing an opinion about an ongoing case could be seen as "irresponsible.")
18 days in jail...
Stupidity should be painful - and eventually Orlando taxpayers might even figure that out.
You have to keep in mind what horrible shape this country would be in without them.
Well as through this life I ramble I've seen lots of funny men Some'll rob you with a sixgun, Some with a fountain pen.
But as through this life you ramble And as through this life you roam You will never see an outlaw Drive a family from its home.
~Woody Guthrie, &quot;Pretty Boy Floyd,&quot; 1939 <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watc..." target="_blank">" rel="nofollow noopener" title="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JdeTr3lWPnY">http://www.youtube.com/watc...
Yes, surely the free speech issue has to do not with whether chalk counts as vandalism but whether the law is being applied selectively to silence criticism.
Unless, of course, the city of San Diego can demonstrate that they routinely arrest and prosecute hopscotch players.
Judge Howard Shore is apparently a go-to judge in San Diego for foolish conservatives seeking to do a bit of social engineering through the courts. From Daily Kos:
&quot;Jackson was the former operator of the San Diego medical marijuana dispensary Answerdam Alternative Care Collective. It was the second trial in less than a year for Jackson, who was arrested in a multi-agency law enforcement raid in September 2009. Jacksonwas acquitted by a jury in December of marijuana possession and distribution charges stemming from a 2008 arrest. This time, however, District Attorney Bonnie Dumanis convinced Superior Court Judge Howard H. Shore to deny Jackson a medical marijuana defense, virtually assuring a conviction.&quot;
Nice when judges and DA&#039;s make their arrangements prior to trial; much more efficient. <a href="https://www.facebook.com/Re..." target="_blank">" rel="nofollow noopener" title="https://www.facebook.com/RecallJudgeHowardShore">https://www.facebook.com/Re...
Also, he is a terrible composer and should shut up and go back to Canada.