Vandalism or Freedom of Expression? 19 replies

  • 1
  • 2

Please wait...

Commissar MercZ

Notable Loser

300,005 XP

29th January 2005

0 Uploads

27,113 Posts

0 Threads

#1 7 years ago

In particular, I'm referring to those made on "monuments" or some other form of government structure. We've seen this go everywhere from war memorials, to legislatures, to the separation barrier between Israel and the West Bank and Gaza. I was reminded of this issue after some controversery over a WW II monument in Sofia, Bulgaria receiving this treatment (which has since been cleaned up), which has prompted some within the Bulgarian government (and even Russia) to apply the fullest measures the law will allow due to the nature of the monument.

My question is- and not particularly to the story before but in general- should such acts be seen as ones' "freedom of expression" or just vandalism?




Guest

I didn't make it!

0 XP

 
#2 7 years ago

If it's a public place, sure it's freedom of expression, if it's on privately owned/government owned property, it's vandalism.




Antilles VIP Member

The Imaginative

114,272 XP

17th July 2006

0 Uploads

9,726 Posts

1 Threads

#3 7 years ago

Your statement contradicts itself Marauder. Almost all land is either owned by the Crown or is privately owned.

Even then, its still Vandalism. No matter where they are doing it, they are defacing someones property, it does not matter whos.


Garruscopy.png



Schofield VIP Member

om :A

319,554 XP

23rd October 2007

1 Uploads

30,539 Posts

0 Threads

#4 7 years ago

Antilles basically summed it up. Destroying say, someone's car is obviously vandalism, but it's also expressing yourself. If it was freedom of expression people wouldn't get locked up for it.




Nemmerle Forum Mod

Voice of joy and sunshine

298,251 XP

26th May 2003

0 Uploads

28,137 Posts

5 Threads

#5 7 years ago

No such thing as freedom of expression in this country - not in the holy value sense. Nor would I support putting it in place. So I don't really see a case to answer here. It's vandalism, plain and simple.




Guest

I didn't make it!

0 XP

 
#6 7 years ago
Admiral Antilles;5521867Your statement contradicts itself Marauder. Almost all land is either owned by the Crown or is privately owned. Even then, its still Vandalism. No matter where they are doing it, they are defacing someones property, it does not matter whos.

I don't live in england... And the first amendment protects freedom of speech, freedom of expression is an implied freedom of that (yes, amendments do work that way). So yes, if it's public property, and not some reservation/memorial/privately owned thing/area then yes, it is legal.




Antilles VIP Member

The Imaginative

114,272 XP

17th July 2006

0 Uploads

9,726 Posts

1 Threads

#7 7 years ago

No its not.

Public Property is still Property. Its owned the local Government or district, as someone is responsible for keeping it in good condition. Its still vandalism. Just because they are expressing themselves doesnt mean its right.

I dont live in England either, but it does not matter in the end.


Garruscopy.png



Guest

I didn't make it!

0 XP

 
#8 7 years ago
Admiral Antilles;5521888No its not. Public Property is still Property. Its owned the local Government or district, as someone is responsible for keeping it in good condition. Its still vandalism. Just because they are expressing themselves doesnt mean its right. I dont live in England either, but it does not matter in the end.

You just said "The Crown owns all the land", but only those in the commonwealth realms, i said England because it's the originator and i was taking a guess. Do you live in Australia? New Zealand? Canada perhaps? But anyway, it all depends on the matter of the expression. There are ways of expression which are legal. The question "My question is- and not particularly to the story before but in general- should such acts be seen as ones' "freedom of expression" or just vandalism?" Yes, i believe it is freedom of expression.




Antilles VIP Member

The Imaginative

114,272 XP

17th July 2006

0 Uploads

9,726 Posts

1 Threads

#9 7 years ago

Yes, there are ways to express yourself legally. But Graffiti is vandalism, thus ILLEGAL.

And it doesnt matter where you live, the same general principal stands. Any land that is public space is owned by the Government. Thus defacing it with graffiti, or whatever, is Vandalism, and is Illegal.

Standing on a Soap Box and preaching to the crowd in a public space? Freedom of Expression, and not illegal.

The question "My question is- and not particularly to the story before but in general- should such acts be seen as ones' "freedom of expression" or just vandalism?" Yes, i believe that.

What?! That makes no sense....


Garruscopy.png



Emperor Benedictine

You can't fire me, I quit

55 XP

16th April 2005

0 Uploads

2,437 Posts

0 Threads

#10 7 years ago

What about graffiting over someone else's graffiti? Or cleaning it off on my own time? Am I impinging on their freedom of expression or just acting on mine? Can it be both? In my opinion the answer is no.

For that reason I don't think that damaging or defacing something that does not wholly belong to you is something that comes under freedom of expression. Not to say that it's a black and white issue of "vandalism is always wrong", but I don't think it can be seen as something you have a "right" to do.




  • 1
  • 2