Convicted for chalking?

[Indyfan53]

A protester in Wisconsin was arrested and fined $200 for chalking a politically charged message on the ground outside of the the state capitol.

http://occupyriverwest.com/us/convicted-of-chalking

If this is supposed to scare us, it only angers us.

Stay alert, stay active.

[Blue Owl]

1. Support a Chalker. Fuck Scott Walker.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

2. Convicted by a Dane County jury. Unbelievable.

[malthaussen]

3. Well, he did the deed.

It is generally not in the purview of the jury to pronounce on the fitness of the law, only on the guilt or innocence of the accused.

-- Mal

[AnotherMcIntosh]

4. Freedom of speech to protest governmental policies should not be prohibited.

When the Crown in England tried to convict William Penn, the Crown had the same belief:

"It is generally not in the purview of the jury to pronounce on the fitness of the law, only on the guilt or innocence of the accused."

[Igel]

6. Was the punishment for speaking or chalking?

There's a difference. One doesn't typically require chalk to speak.

A sign would have worked.

That said, this is a silly arrest and a silly punishment. Perhaps in Arizona, where the chalk wouldn't have washed off for a long time, it would make more sense. In WI, with more frequent rains?

Eh. Bill the chalker for a few gallons of water and a quart of vinegar (if it doesn't come off easily with just water).

[AnotherMcIntosh]

7. Writing is a type of speech. Writing with chalk is a type of speech. But you knew that, didn't you

Are you only pretending that you didn't know that?

[brooklynite]

10. Writing is protected; writing on someone else's property is not

Yes, I understand that the State Capital is "everybody's property", but that also means any political message would have to be allowable: Westboro Baptist Church? KKK? We can argue the merits but it's not unreasonable to say that nobody writing on public property is preferable to everyone doing it.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

11. I see your point. But I think that the temporary nature of chalk makes it different, especially

when the message is political in nature.

[malthaussen]

8. You've read my journal!

My very first journal entry links to this:
http://www.constitution.org/trials/penn/penn-mead.htm#01

-- Mal

[zipplewrath]

5. Jury nullification

I take it you're not particularly a fan of the concept of jury nullification?

[malthaussen]

9. Depends on what's being nullified.

I think the case should not have been brought. Once brought, though, the juror has to ask whether the penalty to be assessed is so unreasonable as to warrant overturning the law. In a similar case in San Diego, the accused stood to face 13 years in prison for a felony. In that case, the jury acquitted, and the whole city was against the prosecutor. Interestingly enough, the judge refused to hear any first amendment argument.

-- Mal

[AnotherMcIntosh]

12. Excuse me but the judge didn't refuse to hear a 1st Amend argument. He ordered the defense to

not argue that to the jury. In this misdemeanor case, he even took the unprecedented step of issuing a gag order to the defense and said that he would have issued a gag order to the Mayor of San Diego if he would have had the power to do so.

[malthaussen]

13. Is that a distinction that makes a difference?

The judge did not allow the defense to make a 1st amendment argument.

-- Mal

[AnotherMcIntosh]

14. Yes. They are exactly the opposite.

The parties, or at least one of them, let it be known to the judge that a First Amendment defense was going to be argued to the jury. This was done before the judge issued an order that such argument not be made to the jury.

At the time that the judge was considering issuing the order, the defense was entitled to argue the issue before the judge. The defense inherently argued a First Amendment defense to the judge. There is no way that the defense attorney would have been silent on the issue at that time.

At no time, did the defense attorney say at trial or thereafter that "the judge refused to hear any first amendment argument."

After the order was issued, the defense could not and did not argue a First Amendment defense to the jury.

Contrary to that, at #5, the language used was "the judge refused to hear any first amendment argument."

[zipplewrath]

15. And the difference?

To the defendant that is. He was not allowed to make his 1st amendment case to the jury because the judge wouldn't allow it.