More seriously, I'm curious about the First Amendment implications here.
I can see how if you assault a black person while shouting "I hate you niggers!" convicting you of a hate crime wouldn't violate your First Amendment rights since in that case it's the assault you are being convicted for, not your speech; your speech is merely used as evidence of your motives for the assault.
But in this case, while vandalism is illegal, defacing a political artwork could be considered speech. I could see how you'd still get convicted for defacing property and have to pay damages, but I wonder how a hate crime charge would hold against First Amendment rights here. Not to mention BLM isn't even a race, it's a political movement. Seems like the city is reaching pretty far to punish speech it doesn't agree with.
Anyway, I'm pretty sure a good lawyer would have no problem showing that the city isn't charging anyone else who painted illegal political graffiti and is targeting this couple specifically because they opposed BLM. Maybe the city even "approved" of the BLM 'mural' after it was painted, maybe even after it was removed by the couple, which would be evidence of bias by the city in favor of BLM. And let's not kid ourselves, that 'mural' covered road markings, which I'm pretty violates some kind of code or laws, so the city couldn't approve it in the first place.
Not a lawyer, but these charges just seem pretty wonky. I'd be curious to know what a legal expert would say.
So they committed a hate crime against a road?
We must know at all times that blacks are better and whites should kill themselves. This is a hate crime against the narrative.
More seriously, I'm curious about the First Amendment implications here.
I can see how if you assault a black person while shouting "I hate you niggers!" convicting you of a hate crime wouldn't violate your First Amendment rights since in that case it's the assault you are being convicted for, not your speech; your speech is merely used as evidence of your motives for the assault.
But in this case, while vandalism is illegal, defacing a political artwork could be considered speech. I could see how you'd still get convicted for defacing property and have to pay damages, but I wonder how a hate crime charge would hold against First Amendment rights here. Not to mention BLM isn't even a race, it's a political movement. Seems like the city is reaching pretty far to punish speech it doesn't agree with.
Anyway, I'm pretty sure a good lawyer would have no problem showing that the city isn't charging anyone else who painted illegal political graffiti and is targeting this couple specifically because they opposed BLM. Maybe the city even "approved" of the BLM 'mural' after it was painted, maybe even after it was removed by the couple, which would be evidence of bias by the city in favor of BLM. And let's not kid ourselves, that 'mural' covered road markings, which I'm pretty violates some kind of code or laws, so the city couldn't approve it in the first place.
Not a lawyer, but these charges just seem pretty wonky. I'd be curious to know what a legal expert would say.
if painting BLM on a road is political artwork, so is painting over it.
a black road
They must be ancapistanis. We must secure the existance of private roads and a future for toll trails.