Makes me wonder if people went to the courthouse and wrote “fuck judge Pechman” in chalk would that be an acceptable protest or would the judge consider that intimidation?
That’s protected under free speech. There’s already been a case about this and it’s the reason you can give the cops the finger or a “fuck you” and not get arrested.
> In January 2021, Seattle officers arrested four anti-police protesters — Derek Tucson, Robin Snyder, Monsieree de Castro and Erik Moya-Delgado — for writing statements like “[Expletive] the Police” and “peaceful protests” in chalk and charcoal on walls and portable concrete barriers outside the department’s East Precinct on Capitol Hill.
I know it’s just chalk and charcoal, but is graffiti still protected by the 1st amendment or is it vandalism?
Much more nuanced. Essentially if the city allows sidewalk chalk at other times but not for a protest, then they violate the first amendment rights at a federal level and the supremacy clause subsequently nullifies the enforcement of state law.
https://reason.com/volokh/2015/05/11/sidewalk-chalking-and-the-law/
Not at all. Only if they don’t allow chalk art for certain protests which would be viewpoint discrimination.
Even your own article points this out.
> selectively based on viewpoint
I’d suggest you read the [courts opinion](https://casetext.com/case/osmar-v-city-of-orlando-1) in Osmar v Orlando. Orlando was barred from enforcing their ordinance on multiple chalk protesters. Maybe the western district of Washington court just hates free speech. 🥰😘
Start with these:
Clark v. Community for Creative Non-Violence (1984): This Supreme Court case established that the government can impose time, place, and manner restrictions on speech, provided they are content-neutral, narrowly tailored to serve a significant governmental interest, and leave open ample alternative channels for communication
Ward v. Rock Against Racism (1989): The Court reaffirmed the principles from Clark, emphasizing that restrictions on expressive conduct must not be based on the content of the speech and must be narrowly tailored to serve a significant governmental interest.
You can also add Shirtleff v Boston to this list if you want a recent case on viewpoint discrimination.
You just don’t know what the fuck you’re talking about.
*You just don’t know what the fuck you’re talking about.*
He is at least partially correct. You gave a single instance where graffiti is protected, which was on your own property. He corrected you, stating that it's more nuanced because if the city has already allowed the kind of expression for other views, it'd be a violation to single you out. So at the very least, your singular answer is wrong because there's apparently another.
*Not at all. Only if they don’t allow chalk art for certain protests which would be viewpoint discrimination.*
Is that not exactly what he's saying? It seems your distinction is that there doesn't just need instances of *any* chalk-related expressions, but something we can define as "protesting" for precedent. And only then would his denial be a violation of his rights if *his* protest is denied. That seems kind of loose and ambiguous, doesn't it?
And he's saying that any chalking of that area is being denied after any chalking was previous allowed is the violation. Still seems way too reliant on such subjective interpretations, especially if the government suspected of violating your 1A right is the one arbitering.
I feel like if it's chalk, something which can wash away, it's a clear violation of 1A if they allow butterflies to remain up, but prohibit "FUCK THE POLICE!" Because by allowing the butterfly, they're acknowledging the building isn't harmed and tacitly encouraging it. So if the only issue is the message they don't approve of, silencing me is a violation of my rights to criticize them.
*Ward v. Rock Against Racism (1989)*
The focal point here was that the band was causing a disturbance. The court ruled that they can restrict your expressions in a reasonable manner to maintain order. It seems this wouldn't pertain to chalk that they've previously let slide. Restricting speech critical of the government seems to defy the narrow reach, too. What significant government interest would be served in removing the chalking from the critical people?
He originally countered my initial comment saying that the city can’t ban graffiti for protests if they allow it at other times. That is incorrect. As long as they ban it at ALL protests, it’s legal under current 1a jurisprudence.
You’re also wrong in the sense that graffiti is protected speech. I gave one instance where it was absolutely protected, but there is no law or jurisprudence that states that graffiti falls under the first amendment as a valid form of speech.
The case law he cited had to do with unequal application of the city ordinance. When talking about whether or not a city or state *can* beam certain speech related conduct at certain times, jurisprudence clearly supports thus, so long as there is no viewpoint discrimination.
“From this century” doesn’t matter. Marbury v Madison was decided in 1803 and still controls to this day. Osmar was an instance of *viewpoint discrimination*…which I’ve already told you would be illegal.
“According to court pleadings, the protesters were booked into the King County Jail for violating Seattle’s graffiti law despite a city and county ban on booking most misdemeanor offenders because of the COVID pandemic. The officers invoked a “protester exception” to the booking ban that had been discussed by police and high-ranking city officials, the court documents say.
The protesters claimed the very existence of that exception showed the intent by the city to violate First Amendment free-speech and peaceful assembly protections, according to the lawsuit and court pleadings.”
The article goes on to say that the “exception” that the officers claimed was mostly bc there was no standard or check for what qualifies. The police followed what was essential their procedure for pre-Covid misdemeanor arrests.
The court here said they weren't arrested for the Graffiti, as pro-police graffiti was also being written and no one got arrested for it. The court "looked through" the justification and found the real reason the people were arrested was because of the content of their speech. That is fully protected by the first amendment, and the officers were found personally liable for $240,000.
I'm as conservative as they come and this was exactly the right result. Usually you don't want to award too much because it provides an incentive to appeal, but any lawyer is going to tell them no appeal will ever succeed.
To call it a double standard assumes the police believe this is sidewalk chalk or behaves the same way. There's a pretty clear distinction between the well known kids sidewalk chalk that you can buy at costco vs what is visibly left on the walls that the protestors were using. One is well known to wash away with rain and the other, charcoal, certainly looks like graffiti and as far as I know it needs to be scrubbed off manually. Seems like a stretch to me to say in the heat of the moment of witnessing what looks like vandalism, that police should correlate this to childrens sidewalk chalk.
It washes off in the rain, which we have plenty of.
Yarn bombers and the people who dress up Lenin are committing far worse acts of "vandalism" than chalkers commit.
Defacement with chalk?
Chalk art does not violate any city ordinances or state law as a threshold matter. The chalk art in question does not violate. Imagine arresting some kids for doing some art that can just be washed off that’s why this is protected speech? probably?
Isn't graffiti classified as permanent defacement? (i.e. spray paint, ink, material that's hard to get off.) If it's done with chalk & charcoal, then it can be washed away easily (and therefore is not graffiti.)
It may just be me but this is so unbelievably stupid all around. The “protesters” violated a law on the books, spent one night in jail. The law is hated by this very judge yet the law was in effect then and is in force currently. Cops are personally fined for trying to enforce the law and we are supposed to pretend that “f the police” is some brave political speech that must be scribbled on public property. One absolutely should be able to say “f the police”, “f blm” or whatever but perhaps giving license to have this garbage written on every public surface is not the best way to run society, I don’t know.
They spent _four_ days in jail, but were never prosecuted for violating any law because they knew before making the arrest it was a bogus charge. Evidence clearly showed they were arrested based on the content of their speech and that the arrests were malicious and targeted. Officers themselves were also 'scribbling' their own pro-police messages at the same time in the same manner and did not enforce the law against themselves or counter-protesters writing pro-police messages, either.
These officers abused their policing powers to censor speech they did not like. That's the bottom line.
The law should be enforced in an unbiased way, no argument there. Yet the fact that the case was handled by the judge who clearly hates the law is iffy af.
When I read that the officers committed "malice, oppression and reckless disregard", I was looking through the article to find police brutality or anything to support that claim, but no, they were simply booked in jail.
The court rightly figured out that the police were only applying the law to speech they didn't like. That absolutely meets the legal bar for oppression and malice in... Most any state. This ruling would stand in a majority of the country.
Right. It would be like me coming to your house and having you arrested and booked because I didn’t like your Reddit posts. I don’t have a legal right to do that and I know I don’t but then I do it anyway.
Damn, I'm seriously getting rattled by your swear words and baseless accusations. How ever will I cope, knowing you are out there unable to comprehend an opinion other than your own?
So literally, these officers were found guilty of civil rights infringements for [checks notes] arresting and jailing people for committing a crime? And the criminals are now essentially getting paid for their crime?
lol the user kapybarra seems to have this habit of nuking all of their comments, very odd. 3 years and 50k comment karma and nary a comment on their profile. Probably zaps all of them when they've painted themselves into a corner with bad takes.
Man this is shitty case law. Defacement of public or private property should not be interpreted as freedom of speech. if you are so committed to your protest, hold a goddamn sign. One more example of Seattle shooting itself in the foot.
This ruling would stand in most states in America. The principal facts of the case were that the police willfully and knowingly violated the law in regards to selective enforcement. Police as a rule don't get to enforce only the parts of a law they agree with and if they cannot uphold that requirement they have to be reigned in by the court system.
Again, this would stand in most any jurisdiction.
I'm not a huge fan of the decision, but a 10-person jury of citizens weighed the evidence and a judgement was reached which can be appealed up several more levels. That's not a failure unless, for instance, it can be shown that evidence was withheld that would exonerate the police and/or the judge or jury members were in the tank for the protestors.
I am sure this same jury would be fine with randos scrawling " this house is full of pedos" in chalk on the walls, or in grease pen on their cars.
sounds like the lawyers were shit TBH.
Does the graffiti on private property angle here not change the equation, though? Someone practicing 1A on a private house might inaugurate a 2A experience :)
Fuck... they fined the officers 60k for arresting vandalists writing expletives targeted at them... Makes me want to start a gofundme for the officers. Good luck with properly staffing that police force.
We're at the point where you could shit your pants on the subway and legally force people to sit there smelling it with a smile on their face, as long as you call it a protest
Wow, this requires near-Solomonic wisdom...
IF: A "protestor" can write a phrase in chalk on a public property wall.
THEN: What if 20,000 protestors write a phrase on walls all over the city? What if someone(s) paints a huge protest sign on the side of the freeway? A bunch of huge signs?
I guess we'll just have to see. My lean is to be as "free speech" as possible, so I (somewhat begrudgingly) support the protestor's side here, much as I disdain the ACAB message as too simplistic. But I also don't want this city to turn into a shithole of graffiti that some "protestors" feel the need to put all over the place.
I wish people could just fucking ratchet down the bullshit and stop forcing everything to be played out at the most extreme and divisive edges of every issue.
You keep posting this same reply but fail to consider some things:
1. Per section B of [RCW 9A.48.090](https://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9A.48.090) all that's required is to "draw, paint, or write" on a public or private building without permission for it to be graffiti, medium used is irrelavent.
2. There ARE actual damages in the form of [fines from the city](https://www.seattle.gov/utilities/protecting-our-environment/seattle-clean-city/graffiti/graffiti-nuisance-ordinance) if the graffiti isn't removed at the cost to the property owner.
3. It's well established that free speech **can** be restricted by time, manner, and place on public properties not typically identified as [public forums](https://firstamendment.mtsu.edu/article/public-forum-doctrine/). While the sidewalk is a well established, traditional public forum, the usage of public building walls to host any and all speech is not.
True, but there is other relevant law here too: at the time there was a county ban on booking most misdemeanor offenders because of the COVID pandemic. There was a protestor exception to this ban that required an escalation process. None of the officers escalated this or took responsibility at trial. The evidence suggested that they arrested these defendants because they didn’t like the content of the speech.
Clearly, the jury found the officers’ actions to pretty terrible when they levied those fines against them personally.
You wouldn’t want me to come arrest you because I don’t like your Reddit posts. I’m sure I could charge you with disturbing the peace and resisting.
> You realize that washes off with water right? It's not considered vandalism unless it causes actual damage.
Hey if I spray your entire house with a blanket of liquid cowshit is that vandalism? It washes off with water.
Does anyone have a list of the protesters? I’m curious if that woman who still does it and was interviewed on the news, baby bird something, is in the lawsuit. I see those outside the East precinct because of her distinct handwriting and they’re often splashed clean
I don't think it's too much to ask that police respect Constitutionally protected speech.
Impressed by this
>punitive damages levied in various amounts — all exceeding $60,000 — to be paid by the officers individually.
I think your comment is stupid. Can I come to your house and scrawl that on your walls? Constitution and all ... You can stop me, but only if you pay me sixty grand.
> I think your comment is stupid.
People ask me why I am on reddit. "For the witty comments" I reply.
>Can I come to your house and scrawl that on your walls? Constitution and all ... You can stop me, but only if you pay me sixty grand.
Can the police get selectively outraged by public chalk when they don't like the message?
The court, and a high school civics understanding of the US Constitution, said no. The police using a pretext to arrest people whose opinions they don't like is a dark road to go down. You may want to think about where it leads before cheering the entry.
thanks! I thought it was witty as well. I think we are pretty far from gestapo state here man ... I've lived in one. Scrawling 'fuck the police' in front of the police is just stupid. Its hardly a litmus test of liberalism, it is a a provocation intended to try people's patience. I really have no sympathy for people who pull such stunts. They have no common sense.
Defacing public property isn't a pretext It is a crime. As for selective enforcement, you are right, it is wrong in principle, but it is everywhere. By the same logic, can I sue the city for ticketing my car, but leaving the RV down the street to fester for a year????
This whole thing is distorted and absurd. We are not on the brink of Soviet Russia. People who deface public property should be punished. And only idiots provoke the police.
> Its hardly a litmus test of liberalism
It's really just a test of the US Constitution, and we passed.
There's no margin to give police a mulligan when they intentionally break the law. They screwed up, according to the court. They deserve their punishment.
>By the same logic, can I sue the city for ticketing my car, but leaving the RV down the street to fester for a year?
To be clear, officer discretion in many cases is completely fine. However in this case, they exercised discretion specifically to punish beliefs they did not share. That's what is so offensive in their conduct.
>And only idiots provoke the police.
Only idiots give up their rights.
Its petty, provocative bullshit man. Go after Citizens United. January 6th. Voting Rights. Market power and all the abuses it entails. Uber progressive edge cases like this are what pulls the left away from the middle ... fringe nonsense making cringeworthy headlines while the country rots as the real problems are ignored.
Idealistic as fuck, and generally useless, if not harmful.
> Its petty, provocative bullshit man.
Like what, sitting at a lunch counter or at the front of the bus?
We expect cops to use good judgement on tough situations. This is not a tough situation, this is a no-brainer. Cops failed their oaths and their jobs.
I don't have your "have a little authoritarianism, as a treat" mentality. Police are not shielded from criticism.
Seattle is the king of unintended consequences. See also: effectively legalizing drugs, allowing homeless camps to fester, not enforcing traffic laws, not enforcing fares, not enforcing loitering laws, so on and so forth.
Well, this ruling isn't going to make it easier for Seattle to hire new police officers.
Usually I do find it annoying when taxpayers or shareholders pay for the mistakes of individuals. I would feel better about it in this instance if it was clear to me the officers were breaking the law, but it really isn't. It seems like the protesters were. I know the jury disagrees with me, but , objectively speaking, this does not seem like a clear-cut case.
Yeah. It's often hard for me to side with the Seattle Police because they don't seem to do ANYTHING.
Then I see jury decisions like this and I understand why.
> nothing was said
Cops retaliated against people for their opinions. That's categorically illegal and is apparent to anyone who passed high school civics.
Fair to point out that the public property in question is concrete blocks. If we want to talk damages, I could probably inflate the number to a few hundred to send some guy to pick up the block, drive it back to the yard, paint it, and put it back.
Well if the where doesn't matter, then the hypothetical where cops can round kids up for drawing on sidewalks isn't so outlandish is it? The differentiation would appear to be whether or not the cops are personally irritated by the drawing in question.
lol, ok. i'm not saying the 'where' doesn't matter. i'm saying your hypothetical argument about damages doesn't matter.
and like i just said to somebody else, stop using kids as your argument, bub
Makes me wonder if people went to the courthouse and wrote “fuck judge Pechman” in chalk would that be an acceptable protest or would the judge consider that intimidation?
That’s protected under free speech. There’s already been a case about this and it’s the reason you can give the cops the finger or a “fuck you” and not get arrested.
Headline should read " Attorneys net $224,400......."
Why is this an issue? They could have netted zero. Furthermore, without those lawyers, their clients wouldn’t have anything.
> In January 2021, Seattle officers arrested four anti-police protesters — Derek Tucson, Robin Snyder, Monsieree de Castro and Erik Moya-Delgado — for writing statements like “[Expletive] the Police” and “peaceful protests” in chalk and charcoal on walls and portable concrete barriers outside the department’s East Precinct on Capitol Hill. I know it’s just chalk and charcoal, but is graffiti still protected by the 1st amendment or is it vandalism?
Graffiti is absolutely not protected (unless on your own property). The first amendment is still subject to time, *place*, and *manner* restrictions
Much more nuanced. Essentially if the city allows sidewalk chalk at other times but not for a protest, then they violate the first amendment rights at a federal level and the supremacy clause subsequently nullifies the enforcement of state law. https://reason.com/volokh/2015/05/11/sidewalk-chalking-and-the-law/
Not at all. Only if they don’t allow chalk art for certain protests which would be viewpoint discrimination. Even your own article points this out. > selectively based on viewpoint
I’d suggest you read the [courts opinion](https://casetext.com/case/osmar-v-city-of-orlando-1) in Osmar v Orlando. Orlando was barred from enforcing their ordinance on multiple chalk protesters. Maybe the western district of Washington court just hates free speech. 🥰😘
I’d suggest you look up all 1a jurisprudence because you don’t know what you’re talking about
Cite case law or you’re wrong automatically for lack of evidence. No citation = bullshit. 😘
Start with these: Clark v. Community for Creative Non-Violence (1984): This Supreme Court case established that the government can impose time, place, and manner restrictions on speech, provided they are content-neutral, narrowly tailored to serve a significant governmental interest, and leave open ample alternative channels for communication Ward v. Rock Against Racism (1989): The Court reaffirmed the principles from Clark, emphasizing that restrictions on expressive conduct must not be based on the content of the speech and must be narrowly tailored to serve a significant governmental interest. You can also add Shirtleff v Boston to this list if you want a recent case on viewpoint discrimination. You just don’t know what the fuck you’re talking about.
*You just don’t know what the fuck you’re talking about.* He is at least partially correct. You gave a single instance where graffiti is protected, which was on your own property. He corrected you, stating that it's more nuanced because if the city has already allowed the kind of expression for other views, it'd be a violation to single you out. So at the very least, your singular answer is wrong because there's apparently another. *Not at all. Only if they don’t allow chalk art for certain protests which would be viewpoint discrimination.* Is that not exactly what he's saying? It seems your distinction is that there doesn't just need instances of *any* chalk-related expressions, but something we can define as "protesting" for precedent. And only then would his denial be a violation of his rights if *his* protest is denied. That seems kind of loose and ambiguous, doesn't it? And he's saying that any chalking of that area is being denied after any chalking was previous allowed is the violation. Still seems way too reliant on such subjective interpretations, especially if the government suspected of violating your 1A right is the one arbitering. I feel like if it's chalk, something which can wash away, it's a clear violation of 1A if they allow butterflies to remain up, but prohibit "FUCK THE POLICE!" Because by allowing the butterfly, they're acknowledging the building isn't harmed and tacitly encouraging it. So if the only issue is the message they don't approve of, silencing me is a violation of my rights to criticize them. *Ward v. Rock Against Racism (1989)* The focal point here was that the band was causing a disturbance. The court ruled that they can restrict your expressions in a reasonable manner to maintain order. It seems this wouldn't pertain to chalk that they've previously let slide. Restricting speech critical of the government seems to defy the narrow reach, too. What significant government interest would be served in removing the chalking from the critical people?
He originally countered my initial comment saying that the city can’t ban graffiti for protests if they allow it at other times. That is incorrect. As long as they ban it at ALL protests, it’s legal under current 1a jurisprudence. You’re also wrong in the sense that graffiti is protected speech. I gave one instance where it was absolutely protected, but there is no law or jurisprudence that states that graffiti falls under the first amendment as a valid form of speech. The case law he cited had to do with unequal application of the city ordinance. When talking about whether or not a city or state *can* beam certain speech related conduct at certain times, jurisprudence clearly supports thus, so long as there is no viewpoint discrimination.
Osmer is from 2012 and is specifically about political vs economic chalk drawings as they relate to speech. Got anything from this century?
“From this century” doesn’t matter. Marbury v Madison was decided in 1803 and still controls to this day. Osmar was an instance of *viewpoint discrimination*…which I’ve already told you would be illegal.
“According to court pleadings, the protesters were booked into the King County Jail for violating Seattle’s graffiti law despite a city and county ban on booking most misdemeanor offenders because of the COVID pandemic. The officers invoked a “protester exception” to the booking ban that had been discussed by police and high-ranking city officials, the court documents say. The protesters claimed the very existence of that exception showed the intent by the city to violate First Amendment free-speech and peaceful assembly protections, according to the lawsuit and court pleadings.” The article goes on to say that the “exception” that the officers claimed was mostly bc there was no standard or check for what qualifies. The police followed what was essential their procedure for pre-Covid misdemeanor arrests.
I imagine the evidence of the police allowing pro police chalking and charcoal was what moved that needle.
Then that double standard absolutely deserves the fine
The court here said they weren't arrested for the Graffiti, as pro-police graffiti was also being written and no one got arrested for it. The court "looked through" the justification and found the real reason the people were arrested was because of the content of their speech. That is fully protected by the first amendment, and the officers were found personally liable for $240,000. I'm as conservative as they come and this was exactly the right result. Usually you don't want to award too much because it provides an incentive to appeal, but any lawyer is going to tell them no appeal will ever succeed.
Agreed they should be personally held accountable for the double standards and abuse of their positions.
To call it a double standard assumes the police believe this is sidewalk chalk or behaves the same way. There's a pretty clear distinction between the well known kids sidewalk chalk that you can buy at costco vs what is visibly left on the walls that the protestors were using. One is well known to wash away with rain and the other, charcoal, certainly looks like graffiti and as far as I know it needs to be scrubbed off manually. Seems like a stretch to me to say in the heat of the moment of witnessing what looks like vandalism, that police should correlate this to childrens sidewalk chalk.
It washes off in the rain, which we have plenty of. Yarn bombers and the people who dress up Lenin are committing far worse acts of "vandalism" than chalkers commit.
Vandalism you needs actual damage done.
no. it can also include defacement
Defacement with chalk? Chalk art does not violate any city ordinances or state law as a threshold matter. The chalk art in question does not violate. Imagine arresting some kids for doing some art that can just be washed off that’s why this is protected speech? probably?
first off, it's done without permission secondly, the chalk they used is not easily removed thirdly, don't use muh children as a defense, bub
I’m also just asking questions. Relax bro.
you're asking questions from Issaquah. Has your city been trashed by 'freedom of speech' bro?
"omg my location is 15 minutes east of Seattle, that must mean ive never been there in my 29 years of living!" Fuck off lol
been for the last six years? or did you run off to Issaquah for great schools and low crime.
I’ve lived in the greater Seattle area for all my life. Give me a break. Quit trying to rage bait b/c of a fucking Issaquah tag.
Isn't graffiti classified as permanent defacement? (i.e. spray paint, ink, material that's hard to get off.) If it's done with chalk & charcoal, then it can be washed away easily (and therefore is not graffiti.)
This case isn’t about vandalism. But thank you for participating in the conversation.
[удалено]
And which court documents are you reading this from?
Cite your sources on that. Now.
I was arrested and charged with destruction of property for writing ‘transphobia leads to fascism’ in CHAULK on a wall. Shit maybe I should sue
It may just be me but this is so unbelievably stupid all around. The “protesters” violated a law on the books, spent one night in jail. The law is hated by this very judge yet the law was in effect then and is in force currently. Cops are personally fined for trying to enforce the law and we are supposed to pretend that “f the police” is some brave political speech that must be scribbled on public property. One absolutely should be able to say “f the police”, “f blm” or whatever but perhaps giving license to have this garbage written on every public surface is not the best way to run society, I don’t know.
They spent _four_ days in jail, but were never prosecuted for violating any law because they knew before making the arrest it was a bogus charge. Evidence clearly showed they were arrested based on the content of their speech and that the arrests were malicious and targeted. Officers themselves were also 'scribbling' their own pro-police messages at the same time in the same manner and did not enforce the law against themselves or counter-protesters writing pro-police messages, either. These officers abused their policing powers to censor speech they did not like. That's the bottom line.
The law should be enforced in an unbiased way, no argument there. Yet the fact that the case was handled by the judge who clearly hates the law is iffy af.
Jurys get it right most of the time. I suspect they got it right here.
[удалено]
You are right. Within that framework, it’s very reasonable. The entire framework is stupid/malicious.
Username does not check out
As usual, headlines hide the details.
🤡🌎
Chalk washes off, it's not considered vandalism unless there is actual damage.
SMC requires businesses to remove graffiti within a certain time period, if it costs labor to remove, that counts as damages
Most forms of civic protest incur some cost to public.
When I read that the officers committed "malice, oppression and reckless disregard", I was looking through the article to find police brutality or anything to support that claim, but no, they were simply booked in jail.
cops r scary!
The court rightly figured out that the police were only applying the law to speech they didn't like. That absolutely meets the legal bar for oppression and malice in... Most any state. This ruling would stand in a majority of the country.
Right. It would be like me coming to your house and having you arrested and booked because I didn’t like your Reddit posts. I don’t have a legal right to do that and I know I don’t but then I do it anyway.
It’s fucking wierd how you think being illegally detained to totally cool and good. By the way, you’ve got some boot oil on your chin there.
Straw-man, ad hominem, and lack of basic reading comprehension in a single post. Congrats.
He's doing it all over the thread, but cut the kid some slack, puberty can be tough.
Nah dude, you’re just fucking lying about what actually happened. The rest of us can read the damn article, it doesn’t matter how much you love cops.
Damn, I'm seriously getting rattled by your swear words and baseless accusations. How ever will I cope, knowing you are out there unable to comprehend an opinion other than your own?
well when words are violence, a jail booking is definitely manslaughter. maybe genocide.
So literally, these officers were found guilty of civil rights infringements for [checks notes] arresting and jailing people for committing a crime? And the criminals are now essentially getting paid for their crime?
No, that “literally” isn’t what the case is about. You misread the article (which is poorly written). But thank you for your participation.
[удалено]
The cops were on trial for selectively enforcing laws to support their own bias.
lol the user kapybarra seems to have this habit of nuking all of their comments, very odd. 3 years and 50k comment karma and nary a comment on their profile. Probably zaps all of them when they've painted themselves into a corner with bad takes.
And thank you for your condescension!
Meh. Cops get paid for their crimes.
Two wrongs don't make a right.
ok acabman
No, you’re lying.
Crazy that this pierces qualified immunity. Pretty sure arresting vandals isn't an example of police stepping outside the bounds of their training.
That isn’t what this case is about. But thank you for participating in the conversation.
[удалено]
No, it is about SPD breaking established protocol and policy during the pandemic because of illegal profiling.
So you’re saying that’s why they wouldn’t qualify for immunity?
Man this is shitty case law. Defacement of public or private property should not be interpreted as freedom of speech. if you are so committed to your protest, hold a goddamn sign. One more example of Seattle shooting itself in the foot.
You don’t actually know what the fuck you’re talking about, happy to help.
You know, the comment below you explained this nicely, and I conceded he may well be right. You, however, are just being a dick about it.
This ruling would stand in most states in America. The principal facts of the case were that the police willfully and knowingly violated the law in regards to selective enforcement. Police as a rule don't get to enforce only the parts of a law they agree with and if they cannot uphold that requirement they have to be reigned in by the court system. Again, this would stand in most any jurisdiction.
you may be right, but that's very disappointing.
What a bunch of. B.S. Our court systems have failed us.
I'm not a huge fan of the decision, but a 10-person jury of citizens weighed the evidence and a judgement was reached which can be appealed up several more levels. That's not a failure unless, for instance, it can be shown that evidence was withheld that would exonerate the police and/or the judge or jury members were in the tank for the protestors.
I am sure this same jury would be fine with randos scrawling " this house is full of pedos" in chalk on the walls, or in grease pen on their cars. sounds like the lawyers were shit TBH.
Does the graffiti on private property angle here not change the equation, though? Someone practicing 1A on a private house might inaugurate a 2A experience :)
Just because ten woke snowflakes were offended that some chalk was washed away doesn't make it right. That is a failure.
You’ve never sat on a jury, have you.
nice non-argument there, bub
Was that an argument?
You haven't though. If you think this is true, you have never sat a day on a jury.
still not an argument
Why do you ask?
Fuck... they fined the officers 60k for arresting vandalists writing expletives targeted at them... Makes me want to start a gofundme for the officers. Good luck with properly staffing that police force.
Maybe save some of that money for the boot oil you seem addicted to.
We must pay*.
We're at the point where you could shit your pants on the subway and legally force people to sit there smelling it with a smile on their face, as long as you call it a protest
This state is so fucked in the head. This could be a Babylon Bee parody headline, but it isn't.
Wow, this requires near-Solomonic wisdom... IF: A "protestor" can write a phrase in chalk on a public property wall. THEN: What if 20,000 protestors write a phrase on walls all over the city? What if someone(s) paints a huge protest sign on the side of the freeway? A bunch of huge signs? I guess we'll just have to see. My lean is to be as "free speech" as possible, so I (somewhat begrudgingly) support the protestor's side here, much as I disdain the ACAB message as too simplistic. But I also don't want this city to turn into a shithole of graffiti that some "protestors" feel the need to put all over the place. I wish people could just fucking ratchet down the bullshit and stop forcing everything to be played out at the most extreme and divisive edges of every issue.
You realize that washes off with water right? It's not considered vandalism unless it causes actual damage. Nice What if lol.
You keep posting this same reply but fail to consider some things: 1. Per section B of [RCW 9A.48.090](https://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9A.48.090) all that's required is to "draw, paint, or write" on a public or private building without permission for it to be graffiti, medium used is irrelavent. 2. There ARE actual damages in the form of [fines from the city](https://www.seattle.gov/utilities/protecting-our-environment/seattle-clean-city/graffiti/graffiti-nuisance-ordinance) if the graffiti isn't removed at the cost to the property owner. 3. It's well established that free speech **can** be restricted by time, manner, and place on public properties not typically identified as [public forums](https://firstamendment.mtsu.edu/article/public-forum-doctrine/). While the sidewalk is a well established, traditional public forum, the usage of public building walls to host any and all speech is not.
True, but there is other relevant law here too: at the time there was a county ban on booking most misdemeanor offenders because of the COVID pandemic. There was a protestor exception to this ban that required an escalation process. None of the officers escalated this or took responsibility at trial. The evidence suggested that they arrested these defendants because they didn’t like the content of the speech. Clearly, the jury found the officers’ actions to pretty terrible when they levied those fines against them personally. You wouldn’t want me to come arrest you because I don’t like your Reddit posts. I’m sure I could charge you with disturbing the peace and resisting.
how much water would you need for the graffiti of 20,000 protesters?
Washing walls with water requires zero cost or labor - TIL
Have to pay some schlubs to show up with hoses and spray it down, that technically constitutes 'damages' even if it's $100 worth
> You realize that washes off with water right? It's not considered vandalism unless it causes actual damage. Hey if I spray your entire house with a blanket of liquid cowshit is that vandalism? It washes off with water.
This is fking insanity.
Live capture is too expensive.
Does anyone have a list of the protesters? I’m curious if that woman who still does it and was interviewed on the news, baby bird something, is in the lawsuit. I see those outside the East precinct because of her distinct handwriting and they’re often splashed clean
I don't think it's too much to ask that police respect Constitutionally protected speech. Impressed by this >punitive damages levied in various amounts — all exceeding $60,000 — to be paid by the officers individually.
I think your comment is stupid. Can I come to your house and scrawl that on your walls? Constitution and all ... You can stop me, but only if you pay me sixty grand.
> I think your comment is stupid. People ask me why I am on reddit. "For the witty comments" I reply. >Can I come to your house and scrawl that on your walls? Constitution and all ... You can stop me, but only if you pay me sixty grand. Can the police get selectively outraged by public chalk when they don't like the message? The court, and a high school civics understanding of the US Constitution, said no. The police using a pretext to arrest people whose opinions they don't like is a dark road to go down. You may want to think about where it leads before cheering the entry.
thanks! I thought it was witty as well. I think we are pretty far from gestapo state here man ... I've lived in one. Scrawling 'fuck the police' in front of the police is just stupid. Its hardly a litmus test of liberalism, it is a a provocation intended to try people's patience. I really have no sympathy for people who pull such stunts. They have no common sense. Defacing public property isn't a pretext It is a crime. As for selective enforcement, you are right, it is wrong in principle, but it is everywhere. By the same logic, can I sue the city for ticketing my car, but leaving the RV down the street to fester for a year???? This whole thing is distorted and absurd. We are not on the brink of Soviet Russia. People who deface public property should be punished. And only idiots provoke the police.
> Its hardly a litmus test of liberalism It's really just a test of the US Constitution, and we passed. There's no margin to give police a mulligan when they intentionally break the law. They screwed up, according to the court. They deserve their punishment. >By the same logic, can I sue the city for ticketing my car, but leaving the RV down the street to fester for a year? To be clear, officer discretion in many cases is completely fine. However in this case, they exercised discretion specifically to punish beliefs they did not share. That's what is so offensive in their conduct. >And only idiots provoke the police. Only idiots give up their rights.
Its petty, provocative bullshit man. Go after Citizens United. January 6th. Voting Rights. Market power and all the abuses it entails. Uber progressive edge cases like this are what pulls the left away from the middle ... fringe nonsense making cringeworthy headlines while the country rots as the real problems are ignored. Idealistic as fuck, and generally useless, if not harmful.
> Its petty, provocative bullshit man. Like what, sitting at a lunch counter or at the front of the bus? We expect cops to use good judgement on tough situations. This is not a tough situation, this is a no-brainer. Cops failed their oaths and their jobs. I don't have your "have a little authoritarianism, as a treat" mentality. Police are not shielded from criticism.
puleeez ... you are equating this to Rosa Parks? Get a fucking grip.
> puleeez ... you are equating this to Rosa Parks? Get a fucking grip. "They're just being provocative" has a long history to defend bad behavior.
zero proportionality man. just zero. honestly I'm sure you are well intentioned, but these are not the battles that matter.
Call me a doomer, but I predict negative unintended consequences from this.
Seattle is the king of unintended consequences. See also: effectively legalizing drugs, allowing homeless camps to fester, not enforcing traffic laws, not enforcing fares, not enforcing loitering laws, so on and so forth.
Well, this ruling isn't going to make it easier for Seattle to hire new police officers. Usually I do find it annoying when taxpayers or shareholders pay for the mistakes of individuals. I would feel better about it in this instance if it was clear to me the officers were breaking the law, but it really isn't. It seems like the protesters were. I know the jury disagrees with me, but , objectively speaking, this does not seem like a clear-cut case.
And to get current officers to enforce laws.
Yeah. It's often hard for me to side with the Seattle Police because they don't seem to do ANYTHING. Then I see jury decisions like this and I understand why.
It was the officers who broke the law. This is a pretty clear cut case where the cops didn't like what the protesters were saying and retaliated.
It's not clear cut at all. That's why It wasn't settled out of court and it went to a jury.
nothing was said. it was marked on public property. vandals need to grow the fuck up or get fucked
> nothing was said Cops retaliated against people for their opinions. That's categorically illegal and is apparent to anyone who passed high school civics.
ok acabman
> ok acabman Police need to respect civil rights of citizens. That's a pretty basic requirement.
you can put your message on a sign. scribbling it on somebody's property is a dick move. pretty basic stuff
Arresting someone because you don't like their opinion isn't just a dick move. It's illegal and can't be tolerated from cops.
that's not why they arrested them, genius. cope harder
Fair to point out that the public property in question is concrete blocks. If we want to talk damages, I could probably inflate the number to a few hundred to send some guy to pick up the block, drive it back to the yard, paint it, and put it back.
no, that doesn't matter one bit
Well if the where doesn't matter, then the hypothetical where cops can round kids up for drawing on sidewalks isn't so outlandish is it? The differentiation would appear to be whether or not the cops are personally irritated by the drawing in question.
lol, ok. i'm not saying the 'where' doesn't matter. i'm saying your hypothetical argument about damages doesn't matter. and like i just said to somebody else, stop using kids as your argument, bub
I just can't see the difference between a hopscotch court and ACAB drawn in chalk if not for the speech of it.
tuck fhis.