It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


New Graffiti Laws (who needs anti-terror laws?)

page: 1

log in


posted on Apr, 17 2008 @ 02:52 AM

New Graffiti Laws (who needs anti-terror laws?)

Police Minister Bob Cameron said graffiti vandals charged under the tough new laws could be imprisoned for up to two years and face a fine of more than $26,000.

"Police will be able to issue an on-the-spot fine of $550 to anyone carrying spray paint cans on or adjacent to public transport without a lawful excuse or anywhere a person is trespassing," Mr Cameron said in a statement.

The new laws also give local councils greater powers to remove graffiti from private property.
(visit the link for the full news article)

posted on Apr, 17 2008 @ 02:52 AM
Melbourne, Australia.

Who needs to worry about terror laws, when we see the new graffiti laws?

*Police have greater powers to search 'youths' for spray cans.
*Police have discretionary powers to fine people for possessing spray cans on or near public transport.
*Councils have the power to enter and clean graffiti from private property and then send the bill to the property owner.

It's a convenient way to search people or enter their property, when all else fails - right? All done under the innocent guise of pretending to curb graffiti... a nice back-door way to slip in more control laws.

Screw their laws.
(visit the link for the full news article)

posted on Apr, 17 2008 @ 03:16 AM
Well I don't agree with the searching & entering premises without permission.

However, I applaud them for the large fines and the jail time as so many graffiti vandals destroy property without even considering the destruction and how much it costs to repair or replace the damage.

They call them vandals because they vandalize public & private property and it cost time & money to bring those properties back to their original state. Just like computer virus creators waste time & resources.

99% of graffiti is ugly and has gangster lowlife overtones associated with it, thus nobody except the vandals like it so it must be dealt with.

posted on Apr, 17 2008 @ 11:28 AM
Nothing is more depressing than entering a major city by car or train and seeing the endless sprawl of "tags" upon every surface these vandals can reach.

These people are defacing public and private property for their own kicks and well, if they get a kick in the butt, serves them right. More power to the Australians for cracking down on this malignant scourge.

posted on Apr, 17 2008 @ 11:34 AM
Its funny , When it comes to music or movies ect . No one wants to pay . But if someone wants to give there art away for free . Everyone screams foul.

I know this is a weird argument . But I can appreciate alot of this art. I sit at railroad crossings and marvel at the murals on the train cars.
Absolutely beautiful .. What i think most people dislike is the horrible attempts at "art" which i agree needs to go away . But we all draw on stuff. Look at the cave men . If they didn't draw on walls and stuff we wouldn't know much about them . The Egyptians also. What would we know about them if not for "graffiti" ?
So i suppose i think it has its place in society. Theres much to learn from "the writings on the wall"
/devils advocate mode

Check out for some absolutely incredible work . Done by "criminals"

[edit on 17-4-2008 by d11_m_na_c05]

posted on Apr, 17 2008 @ 11:42 AM
reply to post by d11_m_na_c05

Some communities do make arrangements for murals/graffiti to be done tastefully. Writing KILLAS on the side of a train car is art, but not exactly tasteful. I'm sure there are plenty of legal ways to go about putting your free art on a wall, as long as it's not gang related.

posted on Apr, 17 2008 @ 11:46 AM
reply to post by d11_m_na_c05

Yes I agree alot of the graffiti I see is amazing, and it truly is a work of art, and it takes alot of skill to do what they do.

But they shouldn't go around destroying people's private property that's just messed up. I'm sure they would be much more respected if they weren't destroying people's stuff.

posted on Apr, 17 2008 @ 11:52 AM
reply to post by theendisnear69

I know . My argument was merely that there is a place for it . I look at the streets of detroit every day . And with all the doom/gloom and burned down buildings/houses . Sometimes the only color you see is the graffiti . In a dark world . Sometimes the only hope comes from these loan artists.

Now i don't support the destruction of private property .. Just saying that sometime the only good you see around these parts is scrawled among the abandon parts of the city

posted on Apr, 17 2008 @ 11:57 AM
Anybody who likes graffiti so much want to invite an "artist" over to their place to have a go at their home?

posted on Apr, 17 2008 @ 12:02 PM
reply to post by d11_m_na_c05

Yeah thats true. If I go into some bad nieghbourhoods, some of the only color and good that you see is graffiti.

posted on Apr, 17 2008 @ 12:06 PM
reply to post by gottago

In most places its illegal . Heck in allot of places you cant even have your house an "extreme" color. Trust me there are allot of people out there that have there houses done by these artists. I rent at the moment . So i cant speak up and accept the challenge. But someday i just may

I have tattoos . Why not tattoo my house? Just another form of expression.

posted on Apr, 17 2008 @ 04:29 PM
Is some graffiti art? Well yes, but I guarantee that's not what these laws are about. They're about the idiots who spray paint their tags all over their neighborhoods as if to say I'm here or I was - see - na na na na na. The complaints have nothing to do with the artful graffiti which is rare.

Yes, in some places that are dilapidated the graffiti can be like a rainbow in a gray world, but that's not what these laws are about either.

Put yourself in the private building owners shoes such as apartments. They pay their mortgage by renting apartments and hopefully they make a profit to make it worthwhile. If there's tags all over the place it's harder to rent and it cost money to pay someone to remove tags. Thus the rents go up or the building owner spends less money on upgrading units because all his moneys going to paint maintenance - with lots of units in the area that way values go down, rents go down, and you get building owners who no longer care and the place becomes a crap hole neighborhood. That ain't art my friend.

[edit on 17-4-2008 by verylowfrequency]

posted on Apr, 17 2008 @ 05:16 PM
Nice idea to arrest/fine people without any evidence of an actual crime. One more way to pave the way for pre-emptive crime fighting. Facist in the office will just love this law.

posted on Apr, 17 2008 @ 05:19 PM
I live in Melbourne, which is why I posted the news link.

Years ago, when I used to frequently use public transport (trains), the graffiti was terrible. Now, on the odd occasion when I catch a train, the graffiti is more prevalent, however, the quality has improved. Some of it is genuine art work.

Understandably, there are safety concerns about people being near train tracks. There are also concerns about people vandalising public and private property.

I guess that my main concern is that police won't need any 'drop' guns when they want to pessure teens or frame them. All that (crooked) police will need to carry is a can of spray paint to plant on a teenager and the kid will lose all of his rights.

Australia is pushing to ban laser pointers due to idiots shining them at planes. Now, we're pushing to restrict spray paint can sales to teens and subject them to unfair searches based on suspicion of carrying a can of spray paint?

What else will we try to ban next?

posted on Apr, 17 2008 @ 05:43 PM
reply to post by tezzajw

I once saw a guy running unusually fast out of a bank after robbing it . Maybe if we outlaw shoes it will be easier to catch up with them .. :p

posted on Apr, 17 2008 @ 06:08 PM

Originally posted by tezzajw

What else will we try to ban next?

Taking photos:

Photography banned at train stations

That article cracks me up. People don't seem to understand that tiny little point n' shoots usually have more megapixels and more zoom power than your average 'professional looking camera'.

I to make a distinction between tags and art. If you are just recklessly tagging windows, walls, etc, then yes, get fined. But could you imagine if someone like Banksy got locked up because he was caught creating one of his stunning artworks?

But unfortunately, it seems that if you allow the art, you get the tags as well. It comes down to the question, do you like the real stuff enough to put up with the crap? Personally, yes. If they could keep graffiti off privately owned property (excluding Connex
) then that would be even better.

posted on Apr, 17 2008 @ 06:21 PM
I have two disagreements here:

1: I dont agree with the right to search at will, there are ways of catching grafiti artists and this is not the way.

2: I also dont agree with people defacing public property without regard, in the UK there are plenty of areas designated for grafiti, and a lot of our artists aproach skate/BMX parks and youth organisations and are given permision.

Maybe there should be more legal outlets for grafiti artists work as in most cases there is a lot of tallent involved (excluding your random obsenity/tagging).

Regards S_G

new topics


log in