California pair charged with hate crime after Black Lives Matter mural cover-up: authorities

[Dashinka 24,736]

20 minutes ago, Burnt Reynolds said:

The law is the law my friends. If they wrote the dumb stuff legally then it's unambiguously a crime to deface. Nonetheless, for what pettiness this issue amounts to, juxtaposing the ####ty locally sanctioned road scrawlings of BLM which is a movement designed purely for destruction and unequivocally nothing positive, with the good-natured and thought out statues and monuments to the founders and key figures to the United States' founding, tells you where a certain political demographic are today in demonstrating clear contempt for the United States. 

I would add that the BLM organization is also geared toward sowing massive division.  What else do you expect from a group espousing Marxism and the destruction of the nuclear family.  They are right up there with the KKK and the Democrat Party.

[Dashinka 24,736]

58 minutes ago, Steeleballz said:

 

    The mural was authorized by permit to be there, so technically wouldn't it be considered destruction of private property?  Hate crime does seem excessive, but it is possible when you are charged with destruction of property or vandalism targeting a specific ethnic group. 

 

   The lesson here for all us law abiding citizens is that if you want to destroy property legally, purchase it first. Once you are the owner, you can (in most cases) do what you want with it.

Based on what I saw, the mural was on a public roadway, and I doubt any municipality gave up this property.  As to targeting a specific ethnic group, since the BLM organization is a political entity, this should not apply.

[Nature Boy 2.0 8,378]

29 minutes ago, TBoneTX said:

I've never fully understood the rationale behind enhancing criminal penalties by adding "hate crime" to it.  Crime is crime.  Murder is murder.  If a white (black) man murders a black (white) man, is the victim any more dead if the murderer hated the victim than if he didn't?

seems logical right.  dont know if yall are old enough to remember separate but equal. everything we do now is moving us quickly back to separate but equal.  It seems to me hate crime laws would violate the equal protection under the law clause of the Constitution  

 

separate National Anthems

Separate areas on college campus

separate  protection under the law

separate TV channels 

separate colleges 

s

 

[Dashinka 24,736]

23 minutes ago, Nature Boy 2.0 said:

seems logical right.  dont know if yall are old enough to remember separate but equal. everything we do now is moving us quickly back to separate but equal.  It seems to me hate crime laws would violate the equal protection under the law clause of the Constitution  

 

separate National Anthems

Separate areas on college campus

separate  protection under the law

separate TV channels 

separate colleges 

s

 

The CHOPistanis wanted separate medical services in their demands.

[OriZ 3,157]

What a waste of taxpayer dollars.

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

7 hours ago, yuna628 said:

Well it is your opinion that it is 'racist words'. Which is what art is all about. What one person sees as art and making a statement is another person's trash and vulgarity. That doesn't mean we should go about defacing them, does it?

You don't see the term "black lives matter" as racist?

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

7 hours ago, Dashinka said:

Based on what I saw, the mural was on a public roadway, and I doubt any municipality gave up this property.  As to targeting a specific ethnic group, since the BLM organization is a political entity, this should not apply.

Also, it WASN'T a mural.  It was painted words.  

Unless the word STOP in the video was also considered a mural, then I call BS.

Edited July 9, 2020 by Voice of Reason

[laylalex 7,300]

19 minutes ago, Voice of Reason said:

Also, it WASN'T a mural.  It was painted words.  

Unless the word STOP in the video was also considered a mural, then I call BS.

We don't have a word that's equivalent to "mural" for paintings on the road, so "mural" will have to do. 

 

If the city permitted the painting on an area that is owned by the government and open to the public, then it's public art. Just as much as sculptures in public parks are public art, and "real" murals (like, on a wall, so "mural") in post offices are public art. I'm not going to do any whataboutism here and talk about defacement of other public art by private citizens.

 

Honestly a more interesting story about the topic of public art and censorship is what is going on in Kentucky. https://www.usatoday.com/story/entertainment/books/2020/07/06/wendell-berry-sues-block-removal-disputed-kentucky-mural/5387221002/ It's complicated and more nuanced though than this story, which seems calculated to stir up outrage. 

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

7 minutes ago, laylalex said:

We don't have a word that's equivalent to "mural" for paintings on the road, so "mural" will have to do. 

 

If the city permitted the painting on an area that is owned by the government and open to the public, then it's public art. Just as much as sculptures in public parks are public art, and "real" murals (like, on a wall, so "mural") in post offices are public art. I'm not going to do any whataboutism here and talk about defacement of other public art by private citizens.

 

Honestly a more interesting story about the topic of public art and censorship is what is going on in Kentucky. https://www.usatoday.com/story/entertainment/books/2020/07/06/wendell-berry-sues-block-removal-disputed-kentucky-mural/5387221002/ It's complicated and more nuanced though than this story, which seems calculated to stir up outrage. 

Words.  That's the word that describes the three words painted in bright yellow letters.  Just like STOP is a word.  And DON'T STOP ON TRACKS are words.  And RIGHT TURN ONLY are words.  And YIELD is a word. And SCHOOL ZONE are words.  Those are all words painted on a street, not murals.

 

Even if NB is in charge of the project, they are still just words painted on a street...
 

Edited July 9, 2020 by Voice of Reason

[laylalex 7,300]

The wonderful thing about art is that it is subjective -- what is beautiful to one may be insipid to another, or dangerous to a third, or ugly to a fourth. Or may not look like "art" at all to a fifth.

 

I am a HUGE fan of Barbara Kruger, who is best known for her work focused on words and the graphic qualities of the printed word. Here's an example:

 

That was an installation at the Schirn Kunsthalle Frankfurt in 2010.

 

That's at the Stedelijk Museum, Amsterdam in 2017.

 

So I have a particular taste, and you may not share it with me. This is fine, and is one of the joys of art. The experience of art is a deeply personal one, and we don't need to share aesthetics.  

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

2 minutes ago, laylalex said:

The wonderful thing about art is that it is subjective -- what is beautiful to one may be insipid to another, or dangerous to a third, or ugly to a fourth. Or may not look like "art" at all to a fifth.

 

I am a HUGE fan of Barbara Kruger, who is best known for her work focused on words and the graphic qualities of the printed word. Here's an example:

 

 

That was an installation at the Schirn Kunsthalle Frankfurt in 2010.

 

 

That's at the Stedelijk Museum, Amsterdam in 2017.

 

So I have a particular taste, and you may not share it with me. This is fine, and is one of the joys of art. The experience of art is a deeply personal one, and we don't need to share aesthetics.  

Those ARE art.  Words painted in yellow on a street are not.  Especially when their message is racist.

Edited July 9, 2020 by Voice of Reason

[laylalex 7,300]

1 minute ago, Voice of Reason said:

Those ARE art.  Words painted in yellow on a street are not.  Especially when their message is racist.

Again, that is your opinion, which is fine. I disagree, and that is also fine. We don't have to agree on this.

 

What do you think about the Kentucky controversy I wrote about? 

[Dashinka 24,736]

6 hours ago, laylalex said:

We don't have a word that's equivalent to "mural" for paintings on the road, so "mural" will have to do. 

 

If the city permitted the painting on an area that is owned by the government and open to the public, then it's public art. Just as much as sculptures in public parks are public art, and "real" murals (like, on a wall, so "mural") in post offices are public art. I'm not going to do any whataboutism here and talk about defacement of other public art by private citizens.

 

Honestly a more interesting story about the topic of public art and censorship is what is going on in Kentucky. https://www.usatoday.com/story/entertainment/books/2020/07/06/wendell-berry-sues-block-removal-disputed-kentucky-mural/5387221002/ It's complicated and more nuanced though than this story, which seems calculated to stir up outrage. 

We see this in various “rocks” that get painted for various reasons.  We had one of those at one of the universities I attended, and various municipalities also have them.  Groups will get together and paint them and sometimes that “Art” only lasts a few hours before the next group shows up.  In this case, the original “artist” really had no expectation that this piece would last for an extended period of time, heck it was painted on a roadway where oil and rubber would soon mar the words.  Additionally, the original mural was a political statement, and others may have differing political views.  The last thing that I see here is that the city allowed or permitted someone to actually interfere with traffic control markings which is a little surprising to me even for political speech.  Regardless, charging the second group with a hate crime seems very excessive here regardless of the situation.

 

 

[Ban Hammer 13,490]

[Nature Boy 2.0 8,378]

57 minutes ago, Ban Hammer said:

+10000