HAHA! Thanks, this pretty much makes my day :)

Gotta love me some Friday morning civil disobediance. Go anonymous graffiti artist!

It's a lovely bit of graffiti. The plates give the age away, though: V-at-the-end was August 1979 to July 1980.

I have this same image on a postcard pinned to my corkboard at work.

Some info: photographer Jill Posener took the photo in 1979, in London (no idea who the the graffiti artist is).

So defacing private property is fine as long as you agree with the message? Interesting.

Please. If the defacement of private property is this hilarious, then I'm completely fine with it.

Are billboards even really public property? The advertisment belongs to the company who paid for it. Personally, with all the ads we're constantly bombarded with, and the amount of money that a company must have to buy one-- particularly a car manufacturer- no, I'm not broken up about someone defacing their stupid, sexist ad.

There is nothing 'private' about a billboard. The mental environment, what I view in public, the shared culture of my city and nation, these are part of the commons. Billboard advertisement is coercive, it is the private appropriation by economic force of the common culture. Culture jamming is the backlash.

property rights versus human rights? I'll go human every time.

I *love* this photo! I thought of it recently when I started seeing a rash of graffiti all over New Orleans--simple block letters accented by hearts: "YOU GO GIRL!" That's it, nothing more, on buildings, mailboxes, sidewalks, etc. Love it!

whenever i hear people complain about public graffiti (not someones house or car but just the stuff you usually see) i always think about when i was in colorado watching a really awesome street performer and a guy next to me starting saying "i dont know why these people dont just get jobs like the rest of us" and i thought "you would seriously rather this guy have some boring job instead of entertaining you?" same thing w/ graffiti, you'd really rather look at a blank wall or ad that we already see all over everything?

whenever i hear people complain about public graffiti (not someones house or car but just the stuff you usually see) i always think about when i was in colorado watching a really awesome street performer and a guy next to me starting saying "i dont know why these people dont just get jobs like the rest of us" and i thought "you would seriously rather this guy have some boring job instead of entertaining you?" same thing w/ graffiti, you'd really rather look at a blank wall or ad that we already see all over everything?

I had this postcard on the corkboard on my door of my dorm room all four years of college... 1992 - 1995!

Personally, I'm fond of the intelligent defacement of public property. There's one frequent tag in my city that I wonder about—the Listen Bird. It always makes me smile and think, but I'm never quite sure what it means. I still love it, though. A local woman has a photo blog about it at http://listenbird.blogspot.com/

http://feministing.com/archives/007037.html#comments

Nobody should deface something that is not theirs. It is not about content, it is about property rights.

There is a big difference between personal property and public ads, noname. The first does not belong to you and DOES belong to another individual. The second does not belong to you, but is being unwillingly shoved in your face and is owned by a corporation that wants to manipulate you into buying something you don't need. I think that my right to not be forced to view sexist, degrading advertising while driving down the road superseeds the right of a multimillion dollar corporation to not have their ad defaced.

Whose property is the billboard, noname.

Eh, I've never defaced property but when the advertisement is this sexist, I support and applaud anyone who does.

Whose property is the billboard, noname?

Eh, I've never defaced property but when the advertisement is this sexist, I support and applaud anyone who does.

I would like the graffiti more if it were grammatically correct. ;)

Billboards are the ultimate graffiti. They're intrusive & destroy the public arena. It's disturbing how the line between public space & private space owned by corporations is getting blurred.
Seriously, read No Logo, then come back to us, noname.

Moxie,

If you don't like billboards, complain to your local zoning commission. Ultimately, though, they are paid for by the people who own them. If citizens don't want billboards, or don't want certain billboards (i.e. racist or sexist ones) they can use the legislative process to outlaw them. If the legislative process, however, grants someone the right to use a billboard, then it's a private thing.

What's the difference between a billboard and painting a side of a building?

That. Is. Brilliant.
And that advert... my God... I wouldn't suprise me if this advert was new (I know it's not though) and trying to be all ironic and postmodern!

If citizens don't want billboards, or don't want certain billboards (i.e. racist or sexist ones) they can use the legislative process to outlaw them.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

"Whose property is the billboard, noname?" - SarahMC

I don't know who owns it. Did the person who defaced Erin Davies' car know who owned it? Maybe so, maybe not.

“There is a big difference between personal property and public ads, noname. The first does not belong to you and DOES belong to another individual. The second does not belong to you, but is being unwillingly shoved in your face and is owned by a corporation that wants to manipulate you into buying something you don't need. I think that my right to not be forced to view sexist, degrading advertising while driving down the road superseeds the right of a multimillion dollar corporation to not have their ad defaced.� – Cara

Was the asshole who defaced Erin Davies' car was thinking the same thing about her rainbow sticker? Maybe so, maybe not.

Defacing property which is not yours is wrong, regardless if it is a clever retort (the billboard graffiti) or a disgusting slur (the car graffiti).

a sad haha from me, too, Cara. we have anti-discrimination laws, too, so that solves the problem?

Oh, please. If you can't tell the difference between this type of statement and the defacing of Erin's bug, then you're just not going to get it.

No, Grace, it doesn't.

You march into your local town meeting, up to your local representative, or whatever person is responsible for zoning laws and ask that they be changed.

Hey, if you voluntarily disempower yourself, don't look to anyone but yourself as the source of the problem. "Oh, no, we couldn't possibly do anything to prevent the big bad patriarchy from running all over us! Let's just violate the laws, and it's okay when we do it but not when people do it to us."

Seriously, a group of a dozen pissed off women could get any town regulation changed. Commercial speech is not nearly as protected as political speech, so towns can regulate the nature of it. I'm not asking you to change Congress - it's your freakin TOWN, not the country. Towns, where people win positions on zoning boards by garnering like ten votes.

I think some of you are not understanding the politics of graffiti.

or don't want certain billboards (i.e. racist or sexist ones) they can use the legislative process to outlaw them.

While you're correct that commercial speech is *less* protected by the First Amendment, it's still protected. And you're talking about a law imposing viewpoint discrimination (which is even "worse" in terms of First Amendment jurisprudence than content discrimination). While I'm absolutely in favor of grassroots work to prevent harmful speech from occurring, given the current makeup of our Supreme Court I'm doubtful how likely it is that such a law (which would absolutely be challenged) would ultimately stand.

Also, oenophile, part of the problem is that you're talking oppressed minorities when you talk about things like racism and sexism. And precisely the problem faced by minorities is that they CAN'T muster the votes to fight for themselves (hence the term tyrrany of the majority). Dr. King had to use civil disobedience before anyone bothered listening to him, and now you'll be hard-pressed to find a non-Klansmen who thinks of him as anything less than a civil rights hero.

LawFairy,

Yes, viewpoint discrimination is not permitted, but you're missing a larger point: indecency isn't a viewpoint.

I almost want to laugh at your analysis. How do you think the FCC gets away with regulating prime-time television? We cannot regulate car ads but allow pickup truck ads, because that is viewpoint discrimination. We can, however, regulate the content so that it does not violate norms of decency. "Pinching a bottom" may very well fall into that category, considering that one cannot avert his eyes and avoid the speech - and one cannot avert his child's eyes, which is the big issue.

If women, who make up 51% of the population and even more of the voting-age population, can't muster the votes, it sounds like a personal problem.

The Law Fairy is 100% percent right on this one. While you could petition to change the local zoning ordinance to ban all billboards, a law based on either content or viewpoint discrimination would most likely be challenged successfully on First Amendment grounds.

In addition, billboards in existence prior to the change in zoning ordinance would be allowed to remain in place as non-conforming uses. Otherwise, there would be serious takings issues.

Oenophile, I think that Law Fairy was suggesting that there are other reasons people choose to deface property, and that some of them are valid. When people don't see themselves represented in the numerous intrusive advertisements that mar their community, they sometimes non-violently reclaim those spaces, even though it's illegal.

Think about the lack of funding for the arts in poor communities, too. Or how difficult it is for poor people to get an audience for their art, and to have it taken seriously.

I'm a huge fan of graffiti artists like Banksy and of several local artists, too. When city ordinances outlaw flyering, and gentrification pushes you out of your community, I like to see the people push back.

The only history of grafitti that I know of is Rome's, when, in the 16th c a local baker named Pasquino posted a social protest in the square that now bears his name and holds a statue of him, which daily is covered in fresh, current protests. He began a social graffiti movement in Rome which continues to this day. While a new visitor to the city might think that the whole beautiful place is defaced, the reality is that a living, breathing city makes itself a forum and gives room for the ordinary citizen to speak her mind by writing all over its surface.

I was sitting in Piazza Pasquino the day that the tortures of Abu Ghraib were made public.

I would love to learn more about the politics of graffiti, Jenny Dreadful.

Am I the only one who caught that part of Con Law where obscenity is not protected speech? Whoops! :)

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=413&invol=15

Um, okay oenophile, laugh away.

When you're done, how about you give me a cite where a sexist or racist ad was declared "indecent" SOLELY for the racist or sexist content? Just one?

While you're looking, I'll give everyone else a short recap of a story I once heard told by a man (I won't say gentleman; his comments, which he apparently thought quite clever and entertaining, were far too disturbing for that title) to a large audience of litigators. This man was a Supreme Court clerk during the term in which the well-known obscenity case, Jacobellis v. Ohio, was decided (this case was also the source of Justice Stewart's eternally helpful standard of "I know it when I see it" for obscenity. Yes, that is actually the standard Justice Stewart applied for his concurring opinion. Still think we don't need more women on the Court?). The clerks, all male or course, had the loathsome (/sarcasm) assignment of watching the movie in question to determine whether or not it was obscene. The name they gave to the test by which obscenity would be determined? The erection test.

One hundred percent true.

Yet oenophile seems to think we're going to have POWERFUL RICH WHITE MEN agree with us that racism and sexism are inherently "indecent" enough to enact prior restraint. Riiiiiiight...

Oh, please. If you can't tell the difference between this type of statement and the defacing of Erin's bug, then you're just not going to get it. Jenny Dreaful

Get what? That it is OK to deface other people’s property as long as you don’t like what it says? This is an argument I would only expect to have with a religious fundamentalist, except that more and more I am coming to believe that is exactly what many at this site are.

“Oh, please. If you can't tell the difference between this type of statement and the defacing of Erin's bug, then you're just not going to get it.� - Jenny Dreaful

Get what? That it is OK to deface other people’s property as long as you don’t like what it says? This is an argument I would only expect to have with a religious fundamentalist, except that more and more I am coming to believe that is exactly what many at this site are.

LawFairy,

That's because you, as a liberal, instinctively think of suing and think of working within the system as beneath you.

Try legislation. Weren't you part of the Federalist Society, or was it all show? Do you like playing dress-up as a conservative?

Again, I repeat: these decisions are made by local zoning commissions. I'm sure that millionaires are lining up to spend less time at their 80-hour week jobs and work on the town's zoning board. (Sarcasm there.)

It isn't rich white men who you need to convince: it's the people on your street who all start a petition, present it before the zoning board, and ask to have billboards removed OR to have clearly articulated non-obscenity standards.

Ooohhh... but that involves NOT whining, which is what you're good at.

If it means something to you, you can run for zoning board. No one who is of voting age has ANY reason to be upset by this. It isn't the Partial Birth Abortion Ban, where you have to convince Boxer and Feinstein to do something about it; this involves your town government. Honestly - try it. Get a petition of 100 or so signatures, which you can do in an afternoon of walking around your neighbourhood, and you've got yourself an audience with the zoning commission. Run for zoning commission, get 10 of your neighbours to vote for you, and you've won.

Rich white men, my foot. That's b.s. made up by some woman who refuses to take action and prefers to whine about how disenfranchised she is.

Sorry, LawFairy. Get a grip on reality.

Noname and Oenophile, I've read your posts, I know what you're about, and I'm not going to argue with you or engage you any more.

My God, oenophile. Someone woke up on the wrong side of the bed this morning.

I respectfully disagree with a legal point you make, and you start throwing around confusing and sophomoric insults? You'd think I broke your favorite Barbie or something. Grow the fuck up and we'll talk.

You'd think I broke your favorite Barbie or something. Grow the fuck up and we'll talk.

Law Fairy: Your potty mouth leaves a lot to be desired. If you can't see the internal inconsistency in telling someone to "grow the f- up," as adults don't feel the need to use such language, I can't help you.

Address the issues. Don't get bent out of shape when people focus your (lack of?) attention on the relevant ones. This isn't about whether or not you can change the composition of Supreme Court clerks; this is about whether or not you, as a resident of a municipality, can change the zoning regs.

So you lost, and you lost hard. Take it like an adult and a lady.

PS. You have a Lexis account. Look it up yourself - winning or losing, obscene ads would be litigated. :)

I think that LF won. Should we take a poll?

Won what?

Take one if you would like, Cara. If it floats your boat, go ahead.

Fact is, it doesn't matter to me, because anyone who sees sexist or racist billboards in their town now knows how to fight them. LawFairy thinks you have to convince a bunch of Ivy League law graduates on the Supreme Court; I think you go to your local zoning commission.

Take a poll, but the real "winner" is the one who provides the template with how to proceed.

The legal issue is moot, as she wasn't able to provide ANY case in which obscenity regulations weren't permitted with ads. (She wants cases as her standard: I've pointed out that the existence of the FCC means she's wrong. After all, you only see sexually explicit ads at night, because the FCC regulates them during the day. Whoops! Law Fairy's wrong!)

Did someone hack oenophile's account? I've seen her rabid and incoherent before, but never this bad. (Not to mention, her legal analysis isn't even questionable -- it's off in a way I've never seen it off before).

oenophile, if something bad has happened to you, I'm really and truly sorry. You should give yourself a vacation. Life is stressful.

I've seen her this rabid and incoherent, before. She goes through spurts.

Cara, it may well be I've been away from the board too long (darn these 15-hour work days!!) :P

I think somewhere along the thread, a certain someone started conflating "racist / sexist" and "obscene / sexually explicit".

Re: cases of the former (i.e., cases where the content might be offensive to women or other groups without necessarily being "obscene" or pornographic), I believe that purdueattorney also weighed in to address the "zoning ordinance" scenario and the barriers to challenging a billboard's content on those grounds. Singling out Law Fairy is just disingenuous.

Rabid and incoherent? Wow, thanks. You're a peach.

Again, for the cheap seats: the FCC, every day, regulates obscene ads. You cannot put on sexually explicit ads during the day, as children may see them. This has been upheld by the Supreme Court as NOT a violation of the First Amendment.

Some of the reason is that the FCC regulates a limited amount of broadband access, although the Court's reasoning is highly suspect. Most scholars believe that it was just a way to allow regulation of obscenity.

Nevertheless, there are other standards for keeping obscenity out of society: town zoning boards are allowed to restrict adult entertainment (and its advertisements) to sections of town; adult magazines often must be kept out of sight of minors; schools (where students do not "check their First Amendment rights" at the door) can prevent students from wearing sexually explicit t-shirts, attire, making certain comments, putting up posters, putting on the Vagina Monologues, or any other indecent/obscene thing that kids can do. We don't allow people under the age of 17 into R-rated movies - ergo, such "speech" as is an artistic movie can only be broadcast to a limited audience.

I'm missing something. Every single day, we regulate obscenity without a problem. Apparently, that doesn't cut it as being anything but "incoherent."

Apparently, asking people who don't like their town's zoning to gather signatures and to change it is "incoherent." Does LA not having a zoning board? Most towns do. Most of the people on said board were elected with only a handful of votes. It's a really easy thing to change - you can just have your town re-zoned to remove the billboards.

The takings issue is minimal - depending on what the land was used for before, you may not even have to compensate them. (If, for example, the billboard is on land with a lot of other commercial uses, it diminishes the property value but may not arise to a "taking.")

Just saying that no one is helpless here. Apparently, that makes me incoherent.

Sickening. Absolutely sickening.

"Getting its bottom pinched" is, IMO, somewhat sexually explicit.

It's certainly sexist, but that does not mean that it is not also obscene.

In this thread, we get to see oenophile at her most unglued.

so what would you say, oenophile, if the slogan was something not the least bit sexually explicit, but still definitely sexist?

Also, do you feel good about the fact it could be judged legally on its degree of sexual explicitness, but /not/ expressly on its sexism?

so what would you say, oenophile, if the slogan was something not the least bit sexually explicit, but still definitely sexist?

Also, do you feel good about the fact it could be judged legally on its degree of sexual explicitness, but /not/ expressly on its sexism?

This whole debate actually reminds me of something I saw while living in DC. There was a train with advertisements (all train cars have them these days) and someone had ripped down one of the posters and graffitti'd "liberated public space" in the place where the ad would have been. I thought it was brilliant, personally. I belong to the category of leftists who think we need to maintain common areas and not privatize the entire world.

Nina,

Legally, you can, under the First Amendment, ban something that is sexually explicit just because it is sexually explicit and for no other reason. If it's just sexist, you can't ban it.

That's when you, especially as someone who is tired of having everything be privitised, go to your local zoning board and ask to either a) remove all billboards or b) phase them out (such that the town buys them when able to do so).

Also, do you feel good about the fact it could be judged legally on its degree of sexual explicitness, but /not/ expressly on its sexism?

Well, maybe we need to amend the First Amendment. Sexism is allowed; sexually explicit matter is not. How I feel is pretty irrelevant.

Love you, Jenny. You're a sweetie.

Legally, you can, under the First Amendment, ban something that is sexually explicit just because it is sexually explicit and for no other reason.

::sigh::

Again, not QUITE the whole story. It has to meet a test of "obscenity." Obviously something is not characterized as "obscene" just because it's sexually explicit, or just because you think it's indecent. There's a whole long test having to do with artistic value and prurient interest and community standards and all that (that's right, I didn't sleep ALL the time in con law).

And where did I ever say people couldn't try to get an ordinance passed? You're willfully misreading my comments. Knock yourself out, get an ordinance passed. As I've said, I'm all in favor of grassroots work. Maybe you'll live in one of those magical non-litigious communities (where apparently people are less liberal and high-minded than egotistical old me) where people never sue each other, and no one will ever challenge the ordinance as unlawful prior restraint, and it will never make it to SCOTUS. (Of course, good luck finding yourself a living in those places...)

"That's when you, especially as someone who is tired of having everything be privitised, go to your local zoning board and ask to either a) remove all billboards or b) phase them out (such that the town buys them when able to do so). "

You know, I can do work with my local governments to make change, /and/ I can think using big public corporate advertisements as a public forum to question/criticize the status quo are okay. I can like both of those things.

Again, I think people have made excellent points about the role activism and civil disobedience have made in positive social change in the past. From feminism, civil rights, anti-Vietnam War movement, back to the founding of this country (umm... Boston Teaparty = damaging private property, hElLO!), etc.) Civil disobedience has played SUCH an important role in how our society has been shaped historically.

LawFairy, I believe you made some snarky comment about how people would never get an ordinance passed, either lacking the votes or not being millionaires like those Supreme Court clerks.

I am aware that there is an obscenity test with several factors.

I don't think you have to live in a magical, non-litigious community. You can take something for public purposes (especially after Kelo) so long as you give adequate compensation. There's not much to use over if you are compensated for your billboard.

The prior restraint thing baffles me. There's no reason why the government has to approve every possible use of speech. If your town doesn't like billboards, your town isn't under an obligation to have them.

Of course, all of this mess came about because of the incorporation doctrine: it's much more sensible to not allow Congress to restrict speech but allow states to do so under health, safety, and welfare powers.

Nina,

It doesn't have to be either/or. Just pointing out another avenue, especially one that would really address the issue of constant, in-your-face advertising.

Civil disobedience is a good thing. I guess I have problems when it is directed against a private person and not the government: in all of those cases you mentioned, it was civil disobedience against the State.

I laughed when I saw the graffiti. It's witty and it gets its point across. Personally, I think that a boycott or a letter-writing campaign would bring home the message to corporate headquarters.

" in all of those cases you mentioned, it was civil disobedience against the State."

No it was not. During the Civil Rights movement people sat in public restaurants when they weren't supposed to and refused to leave. During the Boston Tea Party, people through privately-owned tea into the ocean (tea that was owned by merchants from England). There are a lot of other examples as well.

"It doesn't have to be either/or."

I think you are the one who started with saying one of those avenues (i.e. the altering of private property) was inappropriate, when you called LF a "whiner" who wouldn't know how to get things actually done, or something to that affect. If you agree that graffitti and other forms of civil disobedience are okay and that local government action is okay, that certainly isn't the impression you gave off previously.

Oops, that should have read: "During the Civil Rights movement people sat in /private/ restaurants when they weren't 'supposed' to and refused to leave"

It was LawFairy who derided the idea that women could ever enact changes via legislation.

No, I don't approve of the destruction of private property. I don't like it when people defaced Erin Davie's Bug, and not just because it was stupid and not witty - it's her freakin car.

The tea was chucked because of taxes on it - so yes, you are correct, it was private property, but they were ultimately trying to change government. Likewise, the Jim Crow laws were, stating the obvious, laws enacted by state and local residents. By sitting in the restaurant, the people were protesting laws. There is still a large governmental component to civil disobedience: the act is aimed at changing an offending law.

"No, I don't approve of the destruction of private property."

You say this, but then in the paragraph below it you seem to be saying "oh, but if they're doing it to try and change a law, it's okay."

It was also, I think, aimed at changing a culture. Do you honestly think everyone involved in the Civil Rights movement was motivated only by a desire to change specific laws? Or do you think they may have had other motivations as well? (such as, say, a desire to reduce racism in society?) Social movements are always very complex, involving many people taking many actions with many slightly different motivations. Likewise, there is also specific legislation constantly being debated that relates to women's rights, but the general feminist movement that powers that litigation is much larger, broader, and longer-lasting.

"I don't like it when people defaced Erin Davie's Bug, and not just because it was stupid and not witty - it's her freakin car."

Well I, personally, think a big distinction can be drawn between defacing something that is for someone's personal use only, and focusing on personal insults about who she was as a person vs. making a comment in response to someone's publically-posted comment (as in the case with this add) or say, making social commentary.

Erin Davies' car was for her use only -it's core purpose was not to send a message to the public. And the messages people wrote on her car were personal insults, comments about her as a person, /not/ a response to her message.

In the case with this billboard, it was intended to be a very public message to begin with. And no one was personally insulting individuals, because well, a corporation or an advertising message is not a human.

Oenophile--First, there is no way that billboard would be obscene. No way. It would have to appeal only to a prurient interest (which is a morbid interest in sex), and have no legitimate political, social, artistic or scientific meirt.

Second, getting a "no billboards" ordinance passed is well nigh impossible. That's why it doesn't happen often. And there is no way you can ban "racist and sexist" billboards. That has been held unconstitutional.

What the FCC can do and what the state can do re: billboards are entirely different. The Supreme Court has not yet directly addressed whether the FCC can do "that thing they do." What it has held, though, is that "We have long recognized that each medium of expression presents special First Amendment problems. And of all forms of communication, it is broadcasting that has received the most limited First Amendment protection." See FCC v. Pacifica, 438 U.S. 726, and notice that parts IV A and IV B (which claim that Carlin's "Dirty Words" broadcast is not protected speech although it is merely "patently offensive" not "obscene") are not the opinion of the court.

So I'm with the law fairy on this one.

Here's my favorite graffitti:

http://www.neatorama.com/2006/09/13/soap-not-spray-can-reverse-graffiti-art/

Then there's this:

http://www.metafilter.com/60936/Reading-is-FunDOGmental

"...And it amuses me a bit to imagine a gang of unruly youths forming a gang to terrorize the neighborhood with advice on how to be a good citizen. What's next? 'Quit watering your grass on even days! We're in a drought, dammit!' burned into someone's suspiciously green lawn with gasoline?..."

"Oh, please. If you can't tell the difference between this type of statement and the defacing of Erin's bug, then you're just not going to get it."

...and then you probably don't drive much either.

There would be less of a difference if whoever defaced Erin's car just painted over its paint, but he or she also covered part of a driver's-side window. That tends to make it harder to safely drive a car!

"Second, getting a 'no billboards' ordinance passed is well nigh impossible."

You might like this article:

http://www.onthemedia.org/transcripts/2007/04/20/04

Before people get too carried away with attaching MLK Jr.'s name to this admittedly witty but nevertheless inappropriate defacement, MLK's "civil disobedience" didn't involve destruction of property. Laws were broken, yes, but the laws were broken peacefully and without breaking, graffiting, or otherwise defacing public OR private property. This was done on purpose.

A much more MLK thing to do in response to THIS ad would have been a peaceful protest such as a sit-in or a march. It wouldn't have been as witty or as gritty, but I do think it would be more moral. I don't think it's appropriate to destroy or deface property, even if it is held by a faceless corporation - remember that WE don't like it at all when folks do similar things to Planned Parenthood clinics.....

Isn't it ironic that a libertarian is telling us to work within zoning laws?
Clearly, oenephile needs to leave her ivory tower & go to NYC where you ca't walk five feet without hitting a billboard.

Graffiti and/or street art are one topic on which I refuse to accept the idea of a categorical imperative. "Just because I happen to agree with the message" - or the aesthetic - is just fine with me.

Banksy is an artist, and art trumps property.

I believe you made some snarky comment about how people would never get an ordinance passed, either lacking the votes or not being millionaires like those Supreme Court clerks.

Oh? Do please show me where I said that, or admit you're a poor reader.

I can't speak for everyone, Erin, but I was not referring to MLK Jr. specifically. (And as I've gotten older, I've honestly been more sympathetic for Civil Rights activists who feel angered at the way in which MLK has gained esteem but Malcolm X continues to be villified in our society, really. We've got a society that institutionalizes violence against marginilized people -what's wrong with fighting uncompromisignly for equality?) I would be surprised if any social movement did not contain some people doing things such as graffitti.

Also, personally I would not equate graffitti with violence, as you seem to do Erin. Even compared with other sorts of destruction of property, graffitti is relatively easy to take care of. (When this happens to billboards people typically just paint over it)

"remember that WE don't like it at all when folks do similar things to Planned Parenthood clinics..... "

I would again say it's easy to draw some kind of a distinction between this art and anti-abortion graffitti on Planned Parenthood clinics. PP clinics are for the use of the people who choose to go to them -they aren't messages directed at the public at large. Also PP isn't representing the power of the status quo seeking to oppress people who choose not to use its services.

Um, this billboard advocates sexual assault. I'm sorry, but when I see something that encourages people to commit violence against me, the first thing I'm going to think of isn't likely to be, "well, I should probably take this through the proper channels first." Really, let's be realistic here, especially since most governments and corporations aren't exactly known for listening to women's concerns. Oenophile, you can keep throwing your legal, dispassionate (and inaccurate, as LF has pointed out) mumbo-jumbo around all you want, but realize that not all of us come from your point of privilege. Some of us have been assaulted, raped and violated in horrific ways, which means that seeing shit like this can be triggering. And, because we live in the real world, we're not likely to take the Arduously Slow Socially Acceptable But Almost Certain to Fail Middle-Upper Class Path (TM) that you would like us to take. Why, after all, should corporations have the right to encourage violence against women but we don't get the right to talk back? And please, don't give me your BS about letter-writing campaigns. Yes, they serve a purpose and can sometimes be helpful, but when violence against ME, my mother, and my little cousins is advocated, I prefer to act immediately and write letters later.

And also, given your comments about rape in the Brownback thread, I seriously doubt that you're going to come back with anything meaningful to say on the issue of violence against women. You seem rather to be in a mood to condone and support it today. I suppose it won't be long now before you start with the racist comments (again).

Aside from the fact that trying to go the legal route to get an offensive ad such as this taken down would be long and possibly ineffective, there's another reason why it was better for the graffitist (is that a word?) to write directly on the sign: she's making people laugh and making them think. Using her own wit and sense of humour to turn the advertisers' lame joke against itself probably does a lot more to change the opinions of passers-by than simply demanding the billboard's removal.

According to a member from the Cool Tools 4 Men Forum, the graffitist was a man. A cabal of insane feminist savages were planning on vandalising the graffitist's house.

What this goes to show is the devious feminist savages are quite adept at damaging property that they don't like, but they throw a tantrum, fall in a rage and bust the capillaries within their vulva's when some one does something that they don't like.

Even schizophrenic children have demonstrated that they can show more self-control that the contemptible feminists are able to muster. Why? Because women receive a large amount of criminal law exemption and civil law advantage over men.

It has been this way for many centuries. Under Old English law, women received a large amount of legal impunity. When a woman violated the law, it was her husband who was required to answer for her actions.

Belfort Bax's documentation of 19th Century Law shows that women received a large amount of criminal law exemption and civil law privilege over men.

The bottom line: Women have never been oppressed in the Western World.[

As for all of those dumb cunts who thought the graffitist was a heroic feminazi. You should stop functioning entirely on emotion, as it limits your ability to observe and infer. At the moment you're limited to observing and drawining fallacious conclusions that suit your agenda.

According to a member from the Cool Tools 4 Men Forum, the graffitist was a man. A cabal of insane feminist savages were planning on vandalising the graffitist's house.

What this goes to show is the devious feminist savages are quite adept at damaging property that they don't like, but they throw a tantrum, fall in a rage and bust the capillaries within their vulva's when some one does something that they don't like.

Even schizophrenic children have demonstrated that they can show more self-control that the contemptible feminists are able to muster. Why? Because women receive a large amount of criminal law exemption and civil law advantage over men.

It has been this way for many centuries. Under Old English law, women received a large amount of legal impunity. When a woman violated the law, it was her husband who was required to answer for her actions.

Belfort Bax's documentation of 19th Century Law shows that women received a large amount of criminal law exemption and civil law privilege over men.

The bottom line: Women have never been oppressed in the Western World.[

As for all of those dumb cunts who thought the graffitist was a heroic feminazi. You should stop functioning entirely on emotion, as it limits your ability to observe and infer. At the moment you're limited to observing and drawing fallacious conclusions that suit your agenda.

If I ever release an album, I am so going to call it "Devious Feminist Savages"!

devious feminist savages? That is awesome, I'm making that into a shirt.
When a woman violated the law, it was her husband who was required to answer for her actions.
I don't know why I'm engaging with you, aside from the fact that your ignorance of history is hilarious. Women were considered PROPERTY back then, & property can't answer for itself.
Seriously, though, you're hilarious. If you want to be taken seriously, though, I'd recomend changing some things on your webpage, like the "evil women" v. "fair men" pages. B/c all women are evil, all men are fair.
Can we get this tosser banned? He's obviously here just to troll.

I'd buy that shirt, Moxie!

I'm releasing a line of handicrafts at the store I work at. I think some of them will say that. In tribute, you know?

TROOOOLLL in the dungeons! Troooolllll! TROOOOLLLL! Thought you ought to know.

How much brain does it take to recognize that the phrase "This lady" clearly refers to the writer?

You should stop functioning entirely on emotion, as it limits your ability to observe and infer.

This dialog is awesome and [i]I want that shirt[/i].

The problem with ads is that they assume a unidirectional form of communication in which the purpose is persuading the consumer. When people "deface" ads, they transform the unidirectional communication into a dialog. They assert their identities as citizens and not consumers.

By no means is sitting in every zoning meeting for 2 years until some small concession to my viewpoint conceded to going to accomplish the same thing as simply speaking back in the shared public space. It's called subversion and it is very much in the spirit of civil disobedience, if not consistent with the letter of civil rights actions of the 60s.

Also in that spirit, it is probably appropriate to tolerate dissenting views in this thread, even if they are asinine and come from underneath the bridge.

I love that MRO took the time to correct his/her spelling of "drawing" (last line of post) and post it again, but thought the rest of it, including "dumb cunts", was just fine as is. Yes, as already pointed out, women were considered property and they were beaten by their husbands on those fun occasions when they "transgressed" but, being inhuman, were not subjected to legal ramifications. Quite a position of advantage, there, MRO...or, you know, completely the opposite.

Peepers, I'm not sure whether you were referring to MRO in your comment about tolerating dissenting views (I'm hoping you meant Oenophile or some such), but I'd argue there is a clear distinction between a reasonably stated, genuine, intellectually honest "dissenting view" and one that was crafted (poorly, incoherently, disingenuously, and historically inaccurately) for no other reason than to have an excuse to call women on a feminist web site "dumb cunts". So, I would hesitate to legitimate a troll like that as a "dissenting view". Just my two cents! And that's why I really feel we should not be afraid to ban such people - there are plenty of others who will have honest dissenting views and who will express them in coherent ways that assume the audience is human, and not merely collections of "icky" anatomical parts or receptacles for entitled, hateful nonsense-spurting. We can engage with THOSE dissenting views to hone our debating skills and further our own understandings, to be sure. MRO and his / her ilk, on the other hand, who really add nothing, I believe we can kick the fuck out without worrying that we've lost something important or insightful. If I wanted exposure to that kind of thinking (AS IF I'm not already well enough aware of it, yeah right!), I could go to an MRA web site and get my fill.

Ha! Point well taken, Charity.

I was referring to MRO. You and I are on the same page regarding his "contribution." I tend to be a fan of free speech, even when that speech is offensive and/or asinine. That by way of explaining why I typed the above. That and I have a very thick skin.

I was not already well enough aware of the kind of thinking represented by MRA sites. That stuff is brand-spankin'-new to me. I've been visiting one of those. Thank goodness for the very thick skin.

I guess I just find him (sadly and somewhat ironically) kind of inconsequential here.

I am also too new here to have grokked the community standards or to know the history regarding trollery like his. I am very seriously glad to defer. Seriously. The discourse here is constructive and refreshing to me. Whatever maintains that level of discourse for people, I am in favor of.

Thanks for engaging me :)

That should read, "...That is by way of explaining..." Sorry.

Peepers, no need to defer! I hear what you're saying and I'm both envious and not envious that you're just discovering the MRA position. You're entitled to your opinion on what should be tolerated here...none of us have grokked it yet, and the site itself is undergoing changes in this area. I guess I'm thinking of the net effect of posts like MRO's...maybe doing more harm than good, that sort of thing. It's good to have a thick skin. (and hell, I'm pretty sure most of what MRO wrote, he / she doesn't even really believe.) It's also good to show people how inconsequential they are, by easily refuting them or ignoring them altogether. I'm just not fully convinced that we're "proving" anything or really benefiting by sharing space with the MROs of the blogosphere when they have so very, very many other spaces of their own.

It's certainly sexist, but that does not mean that it is not also obscene. free online games