EYEAM4ANARCHY

Chalk Washes Off, Injustice Never Will!

Emma Goldman once stated that if voting actually changed anything they would make it illegal. The rapid progression of new laws designed (or existing laws twisted) to prevent different forms of direct action bears out the truth of that sentiment.

Direct action truly does "get the goods" and whenever the establishment recognizes that something is an effective method of exposing them for what they really are the crackdown is inevitable.

Among the terrorist cameramen, illegal milk traffickers, outlaw food sharers and cancer patients using unauthorized treatment methods another group has recently joined the ranks of the recipients of this treatment of making mundane, harmless actions illegal. This dangerous, scary group consists of people that draw on sidewalks with (gasp!) "sidewalk chalk," something that (spoiler alert) is packaged for, marketed as, and primarily used to write on sidewalks.

Of course, the fact that someone is writing on a sidewalk isn't really the issue as evidenced by the masses of children playing hopscotch, public events featuring chalk drawing areas, and even businesses that use it for advertising on sidewalks nearby. It's really the content of what people have written that have gotten them in trouble, which is pretty much the definition of a First Amendment violation (in spite of what Jeff Olson's judge would have you believe).

When a friendly game of four-square turns into an airing of the local police department's record of police brutality and unwillingness to hold anyone accountable for that record of violence and murder, well then we have to protect the public's property from an easily washed off, non-staining, material that will disappear on it's own within a matter of a few days. It's all fun and games until someone starts pointing out the crimes of the State's enforcers and then the next thing you know people will be writing about how they steal people's homes only to turn around and sell it to billion dollar corporations for less than market value or to people pretending to build stadiums nobody even wants and no local team can fill.

"Second Saturdays" with NVCopBlock.org

The reason that I know that chalking is an effective way of protest is because about a month ago, on June 8th, I along with two other members of the Sunset Activist Collective were cited during a Nevada Cop Block monthly protest for "graffiti" while listing the crimes and paying tribute to the many victims of the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department. After nine months of "Second Saturdays" and other events calling for the accountability that is sorely missing within Las Vegas area police departments, we were told by a "graffiti expert" that drawing with chalk on a sidewalk is now illegal, in spite of us having been explicitly told by some of his own co-workers that sidewalk chalk is in fact legal previously.

Inevitably, the upside to when the state cracks down on legal forms of protest is that they generally overreach and in the end often the public spotlight and embarrassment generated by their heavy-handed methods backfire in a big way. Such was the case when Jeff Olson wrote stuff about how corrupt the system was in favor of banks and then the San Diego police proved his point by bowing to the pressure of a bank manager to charge him in a case they didn't even want to prosecute (and that even the mayor called stupid) with the outrageous potential of 13 years in prison for writing on a sidewalk with something that was manufactured for that explicit purpose.

Our  case, of course, doesn't involve a penalty anywhere near that level of ridiculousness, although there are some bribery demands (i.e. fines) that could amount to as much as $1000, forced slave labor (AKA "community" service), and for some bizarre reason the removal of our legal ability to drive around for two years. Personally, I'm not particularly concerned about any of those things because the case is not just silly, it's already been ruled in courts that chalking is legal and constitutionally protected as free speech.

Solidarity Rally for the "Sunset 3"

What has me looking forward to our court date on July 18th is the fact that this case and the subsequent lawsuit will bring more attention to the unchecked crimes of the LVMPD and their cohorts in and around Las Vegas than we ever did in those nine months of writing our demands on the sidewalk surrounding their (fancy new) headquarters buildings.

And regardless if the outcome isn't what I expect (and common sense dictates) it to be, I will continue chalking until Metro decides to stop allowing their employees to murder people without consequence. In fact, I won't even be waiting until the current case is decided. The next "Second Saturday" is July 13th and we will be there chalking again. We will also be holding a solidarity rally on the morning of the 18th, prior to the trial starting, and there will be chalking that day.

Unjust laws need to be challenged, especially when those unjust laws are themselves being used to hide the injustices of those in power and their enforcers. That's why I won't be putting down my chalk any time soon and you should pick up yours. The best way to overturn a bad law that violates basic human rights, such as the ability to protest injustices, is to violate those laws en masse in order that their true nature can't be ignored. It's even more true when the laws are silly and obviously being used in ways they were never intended to be.

At 11:00 am (PST) on July 18th, join us at the Regional Injustice Center (see map below)to let them know that you want accountability instead of paid vacations for cops that murder people in your community and that they can't silence you with petty, misapplied laws. If you aren't in Las Vegas, then be with us in spirit, draw out some stuff on the sidewalk where ever you are, and join us in a lively round of hopscotch.

We'll see if they have the nerve and the room to haul all of us "graffiti artists" away.


View Larger Map

I've been working to put together another blog that will be based on ideas to eliminate many personal expenses and make money in non-tradition ways in order to lower your tax burden without starving or going to prison. Having settled on some variation of "Live Free or Die" as a title to maintain an Anarchist theme, I was searching for images to use on the blog when I came across a bit of ever-present Government logic.

You can read the full case here, but I'll give a short summary so you don't have to wade through all that. Back in 1974, a Jehovah's Witness named George Maynard decided that the New Hampshire state motto, "Live Free or Die," contradicted his religious beliefs and began covering it up on his license plates. Not long after, one of the loyal servants of the State of New Hampshire cited Maynard for violating the state statute against altering license plates. In spite of the court's sympathy with his stance, Maynard was given a fine that was suspended as long as he behaved himself from now on. Maynard was soon cited a second and third time and ended up serving 15 days in jail after refusing to pay the fines, as well as being given a six month suspended sentence. Subsequently, Maynard successfully sued in federal court to have his conviction overturned on First Amendment grounds of freedom of speech and religious freedom.

But that wasn't the end of the story. New Hampshire was so determined to enforce freedom (or death) upon George Maynard that they appealed the case all the way to the Supreme Court. To their credit, the Supreme Court upheld the earlier decision by a 6-3 vote. However, the fact that the State of New Hampshire couldn't recognize the obvious irony of jailing someone for not displaying a slogan advocating freedom even at the cost of one's own life amazes me.

This video pretty much stands on its own. I shouldn't even have to explain to anyone what's wrong with that picture. Looks like the city of Toledo, Ohio has turned to one of the Government's favorite fund raisers (along with drug seizures) to solve the local budget shortfalls and/or someone has a friend in the concrete biz.

During a visit to Stanford a while back Condi Rice gave us a great peek into the thinking of the Bush admin. and their ideas about who should be subject to the law. In this clip of her answering questions posed to her about waterboarding by a Stanford student, she states that "the president instructed us that nothing we would do would be outside of our legal obligations under the conventions against torture," and then concludes with "and so by definition, if it was authorized by the president, it did not violate our obligations under the conventions against torture." This, of course, is essentially a fancy way of saying that if the president says something is legal it is, regardless of what the actual laws (or Constitution in many cases) say. That's not quite the way it works though.

Originally published on My HubPages

It's one of the most prevalent and enduring myths regarding Anarchism. It's reinforced daily with news reports of countries that have "descended into anarchy" or political pundits railing against things that we can't do because it would (gasp!) lead to anarchy. The idea that Anarchy and chaos are synonymous has been firmly entrenched within the lexicon of modern imagery. Yet, it couldn't be much further from the true nature of Anarchism. Anarchists don't oppose society, order, or laws in general. What they do oppose is the idea that one segment of any society should arbitrarily be elevated above and given the power to lord over the rest of that society, not the existence of society itself.

In order to understand the distinction it is essential to avoid confusing governance with the Government. The Government, as an institution, is a segment of the population which is set apart from and above the population in general. They are imbued with unwarranted privileges and vested with the authority to dictate to the rest of that population, usually against the will of the vast majority of that populace, generally by force, and often without having to observe those same rules themselves. On the other hand, governance is simply the rules by which a group structures the society in which they live. Anarchists believe that it is not only possible, but actually beneficial that members of any society be free and willing participants of the governance of that society. Such self-governance ensures that the members of that society have a vested interest in it's welfare and success. In contrast, a multi-tiered system of society creates a situation in which an individual or group of individuals is elevated above the rest of society. At best, this creates opportunities for corruption and abuses of authority. At worst, this leads to outright slavery of those at the bottom rungs of that ladder.

Furthermore, in reality, most Anarchists are opposed to unnecessary violence and destruction and many even are pacifists. The Government, however, has always, without exception, resorted to force of one type or another to impose their will upon their subjects. In fact, the very nature of hierarchal rule creates an "us against them" type of relationship that encourages conflict between those making the rules and those being ruled. Many simply accept the idea that, because some level of governance is necessary within a society, then we must bow down to and be abused by people who take advantage of that need to justify and legitimize their crimes and extort special privileges from the rest of society. Anarchists recognize that there is a better, less violent, way.