 |
Friday
Wednesday
|
Suit Tags Anti-Graffiti Law
posted: 5:19 PM, April 24, 2006
by Jarrett Murphy
You've got to fight for your right to party—or at least to possess spray paint or a permanent marker—and so designer Mark Ecko is suing Mayor Bloomberg, the city, and his old nemesis Queens Councilman Peter Vallone, Jr., in federal court. The claim is that Vallone's 2005 anti-graffiti bill violates the First Amendment by barring the sale of "an aerosol spray paint can, broad tipped indelible marker or etching acid to any person under twenty-one years of age," and preventing people under 21 from possessing those items "on the property of another or in any public building or upon any public facility."
Mayor Bloomberg signed the measure into law late last year along with two other measures aimed at graffiti, part of a citywide crackdown on illegal defacement that includes an NYPD reward offer of $500 "for the arrest and conviction of anyone who commits graffiti vandalism." The Ecko plantiffs are seven young artists, and their lawyer is Daniel Perez, Ron Kuby's law partner, who also represents several animal rights activists in a suit against the NYPD. The New York Civil Liberties Union says it backs the litigation. While the NYCLU stresses that it "offers no brief in support of illegal graffiti," the union says the Vallone law "sweeps far too broadly," and revs up the What-If machine:
As chairman of the public safety committee, and a possible contender for Queens District Attorney at some future date, the chance to wage a law-and-order fight against Ecko and other graffiti artists isn't bad news for Vallone. Nor is this federal lawsuit the first round. Ecko and the councilman clashed last summer over the permit for a graffiti-themed street fair. Then a graffiti artist known as Cope2 left profane phone messages for Vallone, posing the tough questions, like "What is your fucking problem, bro?" In a statement Monday, Vallone said, "This isn't about student art projects, this is about corporate profits. The sole purpose of the lawsuit is to promote his video game, which teaches kids to commit a crime." He contends that his law "strikes a balance between first amendment rights and the public's right to keep their property free of graffiti."
categories: Citystate
|
recent items
categories
Bricks & Mortar (6)
Campaign 2006 (28)
Citystate (157)
Climate Crisis (1)
Coney (1)
Cops & Robbers (13)
Cycling (22)
Dead Presidents (2)
Fact Check (89)
Follow-up (18)
Gay Marriage (11)
I Loved New York (1)
In the Streets (86)
La Dolce Musto (1)
Media (14)
On the Stump (72)
Rumor Mill (12)
Sports (7)
Terror and War (8)
The Money Trail (19)
Transit Strike 2005 (44)
your turn (26)
archive
July 2007 (25)
June 2007 (13)
May 2007 (5)
April 2007 (9)
March 2007 (12)
February 2007 (29)
January 2007 (31)
December 2006 (29)
November 2006 (34)
October 2006 (34)
September 2006 (27)
August 2006 (28)
July 2006 (37)
June 2006 (29)
May 2006 (21)
April 2006 (23)
March 2006 (15)
February 2006 (15)
January 2006 (30)
December 2005 (55)
November 2005 (29)
October 2005 (30)
September 2005 (60)
August 2005 (23)
July 2005 (18)
June 2005 (17)
May 2005 (12)
April 2005 (11)
links
Media
Print
Web
TV
Radio
Government
Watchdogs
New York City Data
|
rss feed
| apts for rent | 18,584 | adult | 9,502 |
| employment | 5,804 | musicians | 2,718 |
| buy, sell, trade | 3,487 |
Free classifieds New York City
|
Comments
I believe in free expression. I believe is art.I believe in youth...
However, grafitti is vandalism and if defaces what is public domain and in many caases what is nature...deface your own living room, your car your house,your yard...it is like garbage it has no purpose where it is ...your 'tag' means nothing to me...It is bad art as it takes away from things that are not a canvas...
Posted by: david Jensen at April 27, 2006 2:29 AM
How can simply carrying paint be illegal in the United States of America? We have to understand that it's not worth it to strip away the basic principles of this great nation, just to avoid the possibility of annoying things, such as graffiti.
These small laws are drops in a bucket, but they collectively add up to a bleak future, where it will be completely legal to be arrested and detained based on no actual evidence, which destroys what the Founding Fathers have set up over two centuries ago.
Why is this dangerous? Because once we forgo our rights, all it takes is one nutcase of a leader to literally wipe out our own citizens at his will. History has shown this again and again over thousands of years. It's an unfortunate side of human nature.
Posted by: small things lead to big at April 27, 2006 3:47 PM
Before talking morals and graffiti and deciding whether or not it should be considered a crime, it's worth it to look at who's doing it and who's calling the shots. It comes down to a simple question: who has a voice and who doesn't? As long as there are vast social inequalities and people (especially youth) feel marginalized and denied access to any decision-making, including decision-making about their own lives, alternatives will not be found. Calling it "vandalism" or "delinquency" is an easy way out. And then... no one else in the community has to take any responsibility for why youth are doing graffiti "illegally" in the first place. Also, it's so much more convenient to put everything in a neat little box - but in reality, graffiti isn't just tagging. In fact, ethnographic research about the hip hop graffiti movement shows that the majority of graffiti writers don't approve of tagging over "pieces" and respect other people's "voice" in public space. And some of these pieces are amazing - and are done in very discreet locations. The real question isn't about whether or not these youth are criminals, it's whether our society cares about them or will just as soon ignore them if they don't claim a space in public discourse.
Posted by: sarah at May 24, 2006 9:14 PM