I believe it is very immature and very selfish if you think its "ok" to destroy public property, making someone else pay for replacing the object. But I guess its "ok" for some people on these forums...

mastab did say he wasn't trying to justify it. Just saying.

It's only okay during the course of a full scale revolution that fights a good cause. If I went downtown and blew up our Federal Building because I felt like it, that would not be ok.

Not because you felt like it, because you thought it would be "fun" to do so.

It belongs to the Queen.

"You cannot kill destroy what you did not create"

You destroy something that's not yours, and you destroy something that a other person made with pride of his work.

I don't think anyone thinks that it is okay to destroy public property, unless acting within a specific context like a revolution, which I hardly think is relevant. Why would anyone destroy property which was paid for by the working class?

Private property on the other hand...

Supposedly public property partly belongs to you, so I guess it's OK to destroy 1/300 millionth of it. Anything over that is pushing it though.

Obviously not. This isn't even a real question. The government taxes hard earned dollars to make public property (let's say a park) and one person thinks he has the right to destroy what we have all paid in to? Simply put, that's being a selfish brat.

Obviously no. That's like damaging someone's property. Would it be okay for me to blow your apartment or your house? No. Would it be okay to blow up the Statue of Liberty or the Eiffel Tower for fun? No.

I'm just wondering if there is context to this question. Are you classifying graffiti as "destruction"? Or are we talking about someone who throws rocks through the windows of city hall?

Both are considered "destruction" in my book.

Graffiti doesn't damage public property. While I disagree with people defacing public artworks, scrawling on a grey concrete wall is hardly the same as taking to the wall with a pickaxe.

What about the crime crackdown in New York, which punished petty offenses like graffiti and is often attributed to cleaning up major crime in the city? The thinking was that graffiti most often leads to other crimes, so stopping youth offenders early would stop them from developing into criminals. I think this is especially true today, at least where I live, as graffiti is almost always linked to gangs and is perpetrated by youths under 18.

"Destruction" doesn't have to mean physical destruction. Defacing public/private property could have other maluses. IE) It decreases local property value, it makes the area less attractive, thereby decreasing business, etc.

Meh, I like Graffiti and I'm sure as hell not in a gang.

Yeah, I think to say that graffiti is necessarily linked to gangs is a bit ridiculous. Target gangs, I don't see how graffiti comes into it. Just because someone draws graffiti doesn't mean they are going to start selling drugs.

then they can draw graffiti on their own property, if its so "innocent"

I think that would be missing the point. Just slightly.

I'm not really trying to argue a point that graffiti is worth supporting, which is how people want to drag this towards it seems. Just that I think it's worth a distinction existing between saying that someone scrawls on public property and someone "destroys" it. It's not the same question.

sure, its not "destroying", but it still destroys the original appearance of the property.

Are you aware that towns have actually commissioned graffiti artists to remodel their buildings?

It's not ok, and that's why the American Revolution was unlawful.

I'm happy for you. Really, I am. But the fact is, at least around here, almost all graffiti you see is gang related.



You've got to be kidding me if you cannot see the connection between graffiti and gangs.


It's also important to know the difference between what constitutes graffiti and what constitutes public art.

Someone has never been to Berlin

Well, not all towns commission graffiti artists. Not all of them want it. And the artists still do what they want. So...what you're saying isn't universal. Besides, in those cases, the graffiti is controlled. They're not gang symbols or giant penises or whatnot. Some graffiti can indeed damage the property (even if not physically).

And on the topic of gang symbols, PrinceCaspian is right in gang-filled areas. Gangs use graffiti to mark territory and send messages between and within gangs.

This.

And some graffiti is very artful, actually, and are painted by anonymous artists (Banksy, for one example). It makes for good public art if it isn't just a crappy gang scribble. There is also 'approved' areas for graffiti in some locales.

As for a Berliner example of graffiti...



And I voted no on destruction of property, but I don't consider graffiti that's good and thought-out destruction of public property.

Berlin's graffiti is pretty cool.

Voted no. I believe it is usually wrong to destroy/deface public property.

as with most things, it depends on the exact situation.

I think the point is that graffiti specifically applies to the illegal application of these "works of art" without permission. If a graffiti artist is commissioned to do something, what they create really isn't graffiti, but simply a commissioned mural.

It doesn't matter what the graffiti is, it is wrong because it is placed on public or private property without permission. The exact nature of the graffiti itself is irrelevant. It is a crime, and it is defacing of someone esle's property.

Is it just me, or does the OP question look like a Fox News phone poll?

Isn't that what most of western skier's polls look like?

Banksy?

Of course it's not okay to damage public property, just like it's not okay to damage private property that does not belong to you. Damaging public property hurts everyone, including yourself, because you have to pay to repair it through higher taxes or decreased services.

Obviously the OP has an agenda that extends far beyond the simplistic question he posed. So why not spit it out? What are you getting at? What's your point?

-Craig

Obviously destroying public property is not OK. Whether graffiti is a particularly serious instance of this is debatable, though.

There is a difference between illegal defacement of property without the owner's permission and public art.

Namely intent and permission.

Gangs in Virginia? I could take em!

Seriously though, I don't think that Graffiti should be allowed on private property without the owners' consent, same with public property. As for private property, if the owner (or if you are the owner) agrees and lets you do it then it seems like a fine thing to me. I do agree that it should not be allowed though without the owners' consent, though it should definitely be ranked as high up there as destroying property, for example if someone took a molotov cocktail and threw it into a store it should obviously have a tougher punishment than if someone put some Graffiti on the outside wall of the store.

Artistic or not, it's not fair to the owner. It's a bit like me going into an art shop and stealing paints or paper. It's in the name of art, but it's still not allowed.

With permission from the owner, how can it be unfair to the owner?

EDIT: Dennis, we've had some pretty horrific gang violence in Virginia, especially the areas bordering DC.

Oh ok, yeah the DC area is pretty bad... true. I guess I just don't think of Virginia when I think gangs, I think more of some parts of LA and New York City.

Just no.

As for grafitti, there's a big difference between some punk $@! kid scribbling their initials or a dick on the side of a building and an artist who is actually drawing something meaningful.

edit: and for most of us it's punk $@! kids doing the graffiti

I believe the word you are looking for there is "changes", not "destroys". If a woman puts on some makeup, she has not destroyed the original appearance of her face. Using such language to describe the action would be pretty asinine.

The change could be destructive. If I took a sharpie and had a field day with someone's face, then I've destroyed their appearance. Granted, it can be fixed with some soap and warm water, but it still has temporarily destroyed his/her appearance.

Besides, with the makeup thing... In that case, the change is meant to be beneficial, so it doesn't really apply.

If we accept that freedom of speech and of thought (liberty) are basic human rights, then it can be argued that other less critical constructs are subordinated to them. Therefore, in the face of oppression, the right of liberty trumps the right of property.

I'm not exactly putting forward a new argument -- the entire history of western civilization has subordinated property as inferior to other rights. There is a reason that we speak of Life, Liberty, and Property in specific order. It's not an accident. They are listed in terms of priority.

-Craig

This bothers me though. Are you saying that if you feel you're being "oppressed" by the government that you feel you'll have a right to slash my tires due to you being "oppressed"? I may not feel or see this oppression at all. To me this comes off as nothing more than childish kicking and screaming.

A few of points:

First, your ability to sense oppression has no bearing on whether or not oppression exists. Throughout history, the beneficiaries of oppressive policies have been woefully ignorant of its effects. Certainly ignorance is no defense.

Secondly, the history of social progress is a history of civil disobedience, which includes the the breaking of laws and the destruction of property. I'd argue that the majority of our most celebrated historical events are centered around such actions.

Lastly, the topic here was specifically the damage of public property, so your example about the slashing of your tires is not completely relevant. I can think of many instances where the destruction of public property is morally justifiable. It certainly doesn't mean that I support every random act of vandalism. We're all intelligent people and able to judge each act on an individual basis.

-Craig

I thought we were arguing when it wasn't permitted.

Destruction of private property is worse than destroying public property in my book.

I'm happy for you. Really.


But either way, it's important when argue when something shouldn't be allowed to clarify when something should.