It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Jeff Olson, the 40-year-old man who is being prosecuted for scrawling anti-megabank messages on sidewalks in water-soluble chalk last year now faces a 13-year jail sentence. A judge has barred his attorney from mentioning freedom of speech during trial. According to the San Diego Reader, which reported on Tuesday that a judge had opted to prevent Olson’s attorney from "mentioning the First Amendment, free speech, free expression, public forum, expressive conduct, or political speech during the trial,” Olson must now stand trial for on 13 counts of vandalism.
faces a 13-year jail sentence
Originally posted by xDeadcowx
reply to post by StrangeTimez
Paying 6k to do what the rain does for free.
I would like to know on what grounds a judge is able to dictate what defense a person is allowed to have.
Are they able to decide that someone is not able to mention "self defense" if they were attacked?
Screams of kick backs to me.
DC
Originally posted by alfa1
Does "freedom of speech" normally extend to acts of vandalism?
I mean if, for example, somebody you didnt like (eg. stupid neighbor) was to vandalise your own house in a similar way, then would you also be arguing that he has a right to do this because of "free speech"?
Because the law is supposed to work the same way, whether you agree with the person's ideals or not.
Originally posted by StrangeTimez
I dont know about his state but in NJ it is not considered vandalism as long as it is removable by water. Chalk and wheat pasting for example.
Shore cited the case, Mackinney v. Nielsen 69 F.3d 1002 (9th Cir.1995), where a man was acquitted after a court ruled that use of chalk was not considered vandalism.
The law was later changed to define vandalism as defacement "with graffiti or other inscribed material."
Originally posted by sarahlm
Next they will be jailing kids for chalking hopscotch on the pavements outside
This from a court document filed by Hazard.
“The People do not fear that this reading of section 594(A) will make criminals of every child using chalk. Chalk festivals may still be permitted. Kids acting without malice may still engage in their art...
Originally posted by alfa1
Originally posted by StrangeTimez
I dont know about his state but in NJ it is not considered vandalism as long as it is removable by water. Chalk and wheat pasting for example.
Reading more about the case at the original source rather than rt's second hand version, the issue of chalk has come up before...
Shore cited the case, Mackinney v. Nielsen 69 F.3d 1002 (9th Cir.1995), where a man was acquitted after a court ruled that use of chalk was not considered vandalism.
The law was later changed to define vandalism as defacement "with graffiti or other inscribed material."
...so it appears now that chalk is included.
Circumventing the rules, without permission, under the color of night, and now waiving a banner of the First Amendment, does not negate the fact that defacement occurred, a private business suffered real and substantial monetary damages, and Defendant is responsible.
Originally posted by StrangeTimez
Jeff Olson, the 40-year-old man who is being prosecuted for scrawling anti-megabank messages on sidewalks in water-soluble chalk last year now faces a 13-year jail sentence. A judge has barred his attorney from mentioning freedom of speech during trial. According to the San Diego Reader, which reported on Tuesday that a judge had opted to prevent Olson’s attorney from "mentioning the First Amendment, free speech, free expression, public forum, expressive conduct, or political speech during the trial,” Olson must now stand trial for on 13 counts of vandalism.
rt.com...
THIS is madness. The kind of stuff that makes you scared to voice your opinions... We are going to hell in a handbasket.
One bank said they spent $6000 cleaning up the water soluable chalk lol....edit on 26-6-2013 by StrangeTimez because: Addition
Originally posted by jude11
Originally posted by alfa1
Does "freedom of speech" normally extend to acts of vandalism?
I mean if, for example, somebody you didnt like (eg. stupid neighbor) was to vandalise your own house in a similar way, then would you also be arguing that he has a right to do this because of "free speech"?
Because the law is supposed to work the same way, whether you agree with the person's ideals or not.
If you did this to your neighbor, would you be facing 13 yrs in prison?
And also, public entities are not protected from criticism, photos, free speech or news reports.
As any public figure or celebrity knows.
This is BS and a case of a judge being paid..
Peace
Originally posted by Common Good
Your source-
"Olson continued to protest outside of Bank of America. In February 2012, he came across a box of chalk at a local pharmacy and decided to begin leaving his mark with written statements.
"I thought it was a perfect way to get my message out there. Much better than handing out leaflets or holding a sign," says Olson.
Over the course of the next six months Olson visited the Bank of America branch a few days per week, leaving behind scribbled slogans such as "Stop big banks" and "Stop Bank Blight.com."
According to Olson, who spoke with local broadcaster KGTV, one Bank of America branch claimed it had cost $6,000 to clean up the chalk writing.
---------------------------------------------
Dont they get their sidewalks cleaned on a regular basis anyways?
Even mom and pop convienent stores get their sidewalks cleaned on a normal basis.
The bank is getting ripped off by whoever is cleaning their sidewalks as well
Nobody likes the banks.
Since when do judges get to pick what amendments can and cannot be heard?
I didnt think there was ever an option to pick and choose.
Guess Im wrong- we only get the protections they are willing to afford us.
edit on 26-6-2013 by Common Good because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by sarahlm
I didn't even know a judge could ban your freedom of speech. Chalk doesn't hurt anyone, this is just pathetic really and they're going to destroy that poor man's life jailing him for it. Next they will be jailing kids for chalking hopscotch on the pavements outside