Chalking It Up to Big Brother, Guy Faces 13 Years For Sidewalk Slogans

NOTES FROM NORSE:   While Santa Cruz has not cited or arrested anyone recently for chalking (that we know of–contact me at if you know of any cases), the City moved to criminalize protest against the anti-homeless laws when they were ramped up in 2002/2003.    The case of HUFF activist Becky Johnson:  See &    Given the step-up in First Alarm, Panther Protective Services, and other Private Security thug surveillance downtown  and the massive response of the SCPD to minor infractions like sitting near a building or smoking near Pacific Avenue, I suspect any overt political chalking would result in another DTA-Take-Back-Santa-Cruz attack elementary First Amendment rights.SEE ALSO COMMENTS ON THE WEBPAGE:

06.29.13 – 12:06 PM

Say What? Chalking It Up to Big Brother, Guy Faces 13 Years For Sidewalk Slogans

by Abby Zimet
It was bad enough when Pennsylvania health care activist AJ Marin, at a demonstration against Gov. Tom Corbett’s move to leave over 700,000 Pennsylvania citizens uninsured, got arrested for chalking on a wall the  “derogatory” remark: “Governor Corbett has health insurance, we should too.” Then came the start of the trial for San Diego’s Jeff Olson, arrested months after the fact for protesting bank bailouts by chalking – with washable kids’ chalk – “No Thanks, Big Banks” and “Shame on Bank of America.” He faces – wait for it – 13 counts of misdemeanor vandalism charges, which could send him to jail for 13 years and cost him $13,000. On the first day of his trial, a judge prohibited Olson’s attorney from mentioning the First Amendment, free speech, free expression, or political speech during the trial. Come to think about it, sounds about right.
From the City Attorney’s Office: “The People do not fear that this reading of section 594(A) will make criminals of every child using chalk. Chalk festivals may still be permitted. Kids acting without malice may still engage in their art. Circumventing the rules, without permission, under the color of night, and now waiving a banner of the First Amendment, does not negate the fact that defacement occurred, a private business suffered real and substantial monetary damages, and Defendant is responsible.”


Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments…
Common Dreams
Breaking News & Views for the Progressive Community.

Independent, non-profit newscenter since 1997.
To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *