The Non Profit Group that helps citizens eliminate Graffiti Vandalism, Blast the ACLU for helping to Promote the Crime against law abiding citizens.
August 21, 2005 (Press Release) --
August 21, 2005
Dear Mayor Bloomberg,
Please do not give in to Arthur Eisenberg. His 18 August letter (copy enclosed) would have you believe he is a champion of the U.S. Constitution. In fact, his letter shrieks of loophole-searching - a desperate attempt to perpetuate his agenda. If, in their frenzied efforts, Brandenburg v. Ohio, 39 U.S. 444 is the best that Eisenberg’s staff can produce, they indeed have a very weak case.
The youth subculture that engages in tagger graffiti is responsible for billions of dollars in damage to US communities every year. The subculture has its own language and communications channels. They flock to exhibits like the one proposed for New York City, which usually act as accelerants, resulting in increased graffiti vandalism in the area. Here are just a few examples:
· The “Venice Pit” in Los Angeles. The Venice Pit was designated by City leadership as an outdoor gallery, showcasing local spray can artists. Following its opening, the area became an eyesore and all the original artwork was obliterated with tags, including every square inch of the surrounding area (benches, fencing, sidewalks, and trees.)
· The Martinez Gallery, New York City, January 17, 1998 to February 28, 1998. As a result of a graffiti art exhibit, tagging increased in and around the gallery for one square mile.
· The Walker Art Center, Minneapolis, Minnesota, March 2, 2000. The Center sponsored Shepard Fairey, a nationally known figure who promotes placing "ObeyGiant" posters on objects in the name of what he calls "phenomenology" (property owners call it "graffiti" when such posters are placed on their property without permission). During his stay as a guest in Minneapolis, Fairey and an accomplice were caught placing their posters on private property and were arrested. Also, phenomenology posters went up on public and private property all over Minneapolis, resulting in thousands of dollars in cleanup cost.
· The Consolidated Works Gallery, Seattle, March 18, 2000 to April 30, 2000, featured Barry McGee, in his 30's, who had done graffiti in San Francisco, using the moniker "Twist" for about 10 years. On the opening day of the show, 35 new tags went up in the area, and over the next 2 weeks calls to Seattle's Graffiti Hotline, reporting graffiti on private property, increased dramatically.
· The Modern Art Museum Kiasma, downtown Helsinki, Finland, July 30, 2000, featured internationally known writers (paid to participate) applying graffiti to a 120-meter-long wall. Thousands of youth attended the show, and the local newspaper reported that, in the aftermath, there was a tenfold increase in graffiti tags in downtown Helsinki (a City which spends $2 million per year to clean up graffiti!).
· Spazio P4 Gallery - Urban Edge Show, Milano, Italy, 6-25 March 2005. As a result of a graffiti art exhibit, tagging increased around the gallery for a half square mile.
Despite such overwhelming evidence, Mr. Eisenberg, using the lens of Brandenberg vs Ohio, wants to distort your and the public’s view of this issue, having us believe that the proposed exhibit will not encourage unlawful activity.
Stick to your principles, Mr. Mayor. Do not allow Eisenberg with his legal sideshow cause you to reverse your position.
Copy: Arthur Eisenberg
Legal Director
New York Civil Liberties Union
125 Broad Street
New York, NY 10004
August 18, 2005
Michael R. Bloomberg
Mayor, City of New York
City Hall
New York, NY 10007
Re: Ecko Unltd. / Street Fair Permit #MO4-042
Dear Mayor Bloomberg:
We are writing with respect to the decision of city officials to revoke the above-referenced street activity permit that had been issued on July 18, 2005 to Ecko Unltd. authorizing Ecko to conduct a block party designed to present graffiti as an art form. Under the authority conferred by the street activity permit, Ecko had planned to conduct an outdoor art exhibition featuring graffiti artists who were to be called upon to provide live art demonstrations. These demonstrations would have included, inter alia, individual artists painting on two-dimensional images of subway cars. City officials apparently revoked the street activity permit upon the claim that the graffiti content of the exhibition -- and particularly the simulation of graffiti on images of subway cars -- would encourage people to engage in unlawful graffiti and that, therefore, the City should withhold its permission for the event.
We are deeply disappointed in the City's decision. In expressing this disappointment, we make no claim that the City cannot prohibit individuals from undertaking to draw graffiti on public property or, more generally, to prohibit individuals from placing graffiti on property that is not their own. But if an artist chooses to paint on her own canvas or wall-board or cut-out replicas of subway cars and chooses to do so in the graffiti style, such artistic expression is entitled to plenary protection under the First Amendment. And, under well-established First Amendment doctrine, City officials may not seek to censor such artistic expression on the basis of the content. But, that is precisely what the City is doing here. It is telling the sponsor of an art exhibition that it can undertake to present an art demonstration with artists painting canvases or wall-board only so long as such expression does not take the form of the graffiti style or only so long as the objects that are being painted are not in the form of a subway car.
There is clear Supreme Court precedent that applies to a circumstance, such as this, where municipal officials claim that constitutionally-protected expression will encourage unlawful activity. In Brandenburg v. Ohio, 39 U.S. 444 (1969) the Supreme Court observed that even advocacy that might possibly inspire unlawful conduct does not lose its First Amendment protection unless such expression "is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action." Brandenburg, 395 U.S. at 447. (emphasis supplied) The graffiti exhibition at issue here does not come close to crossing over into constitutionally unprotected expression. The sponsor of the exhibit has evinced no intention of advocating that individuals engage in unlawful graffiti. Indeed, as we understand matters, the sponsor has offered affirmatively to disavow and discourage unlawful conduct by making statements discouraging unlawful graffiti at the art exhibition itself or even by organizing artists to convey that message in the public schools. Moreover, there is absolutely no evidence that individuals viewing the exhibition will be impelled to respond with "imminent lawless conduct."
Lawyers for the City well know -- or should know -- that the exhibition does not even remotely cross the Brandenburg line and that the City's attempted censorship cannot be sustained under current First Amendment doctrine. We can only conclude, therefore, that either the City's lawyers failed properly to advise City administrators with respect to this matter or that City administrators failed to heed their lawyers' advice. In either event, the result is disappointing.
We strongly urge the Mayor's Office to reverse this decision and reinstate the permit.
Respectfully,
Arthur Eisenberg
Donna Lieberman
Beth Haroules
cc: Michael Cardozo, Esq.
Dear Mayor Bloomberg,
Please do not give in to Arthur Eisenberg. His 18 August letter (copy enclosed) would have you believe he is a champion of the U.S. Constitution. In fact, his letter shrieks of loophole-searching - a desperate attempt to perpetuate his agenda. If, in their frenzied efforts, Brandenburg v. Ohio, 39 U.S. 444 is the best that Eisenberg’s staff can produce, they indeed have a very weak case.
The youth subculture that engages in tagger graffiti is responsible for billions of dollars in damage to US communities every year. The subculture has its own language and communications channels. They flock to exhibits like the one proposed for New York City, which usually act as accelerants, resulting in increased graffiti vandalism in the area. Here are just a few examples:
· The “Venice Pit” in Los Angeles. The Venice Pit was designated by City leadership as an outdoor gallery, showcasing local spray can artists. Following its opening, the area became an eyesore and all the original artwork was obliterated with tags, including every square inch of the surrounding area (benches, fencing, sidewalks, and trees.)
· The Martinez Gallery, New York City, January 17, 1998 to February 28, 1998. As a result of a graffiti art exhibit, tagging increased in and around the gallery for one square mile.
· The Walker Art Center, Minneapolis, Minnesota, March 2, 2000. The Center sponsored Shepard Fairey, a nationally known figure who promotes placing "ObeyGiant" posters on objects in the name of what he calls "phenomenology" (property owners call it "graffiti" when such posters are placed on their property without permission). During his stay as a guest in Minneapolis, Fairey and an accomplice were caught placing their posters on private property and were arrested. Also, phenomenology posters went up on public and private property all over Minneapolis, resulting in thousands of dollars in cleanup cost.
· The Consolidated Works Gallery, Seattle, March 18, 2000 to April 30, 2000, featured Barry McGee, in his 30's, who had done graffiti in San Francisco, using the moniker "Twist" for about 10 years. On the opening day of the show, 35 new tags went up in the area, and over the next 2 weeks calls to Seattle's Graffiti Hotline, reporting graffiti on private property, increased dramatically.
· The Modern Art Museum Kiasma, downtown Helsinki, Finland, July 30, 2000, featured internationally known writers (paid to participate) applying graffiti to a 120-meter-long wall. Thousands of youth attended the show, and the local newspaper reported that, in the aftermath, there was a tenfold increase in graffiti tags in downtown Helsinki (a City which spends $2 million per year to clean up graffiti!).
· Spazio P4 Gallery - Urban Edge Show, Milano, Italy, 6-25 March 2005. As a result of a graffiti art exhibit, tagging increased around the gallery for a half square mile.
Despite such overwhelming evidence, Mr. Eisenberg, using the lens of Brandenberg vs Ohio, wants to distort your and the public’s view of this issue, having us believe that the proposed exhibit will not encourage unlawful activity.
Stick to your principles, Mr. Mayor. Do not allow Eisenberg with his legal sideshow cause you to reverse your position.
Copy: Arthur Eisenberg
Legal Director
New York Civil Liberties Union
125 Broad Street
New York, NY 10004
August 18, 2005
Michael R. Bloomberg
Mayor, City of New York
City Hall
New York, NY 10007
Re: Ecko Unltd. / Street Fair Permit #MO4-042
Dear Mayor Bloomberg:
We are writing with respect to the decision of city officials to revoke the above-referenced street activity permit that had been issued on July 18, 2005 to Ecko Unltd. authorizing Ecko to conduct a block party designed to present graffiti as an art form. Under the authority conferred by the street activity permit, Ecko had planned to conduct an outdoor art exhibition featuring graffiti artists who were to be called upon to provide live art demonstrations. These demonstrations would have included, inter alia, individual artists painting on two-dimensional images of subway cars. City officials apparently revoked the street activity permit upon the claim that the graffiti content of the exhibition -- and particularly the simulation of graffiti on images of subway cars -- would encourage people to engage in unlawful graffiti and that, therefore, the City should withhold its permission for the event.
We are deeply disappointed in the City's decision. In expressing this disappointment, we make no claim that the City cannot prohibit individuals from undertaking to draw graffiti on public property or, more generally, to prohibit individuals from placing graffiti on property that is not their own. But if an artist chooses to paint on her own canvas or wall-board or cut-out replicas of subway cars and chooses to do so in the graffiti style, such artistic expression is entitled to plenary protection under the First Amendment. And, under well-established First Amendment doctrine, City officials may not seek to censor such artistic expression on the basis of the content. But, that is precisely what the City is doing here. It is telling the sponsor of an art exhibition that it can undertake to present an art demonstration with artists painting canvases or wall-board only so long as such expression does not take the form of the graffiti style or only so long as the objects that are being painted are not in the form of a subway car.
There is clear Supreme Court precedent that applies to a circumstance, such as this, where municipal officials claim that constitutionally-protected expression will encourage unlawful activity. In Brandenburg v. Ohio, 39 U.S. 444 (1969) the Supreme Court observed that even advocacy that might possibly inspire unlawful conduct does not lose its First Amendment protection unless such expression "is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action." Brandenburg, 395 U.S. at 447. (emphasis supplied) The graffiti exhibition at issue here does not come close to crossing over into constitutionally unprotected expression. The sponsor of the exhibit has evinced no intention of advocating that individuals engage in unlawful graffiti. Indeed, as we understand matters, the sponsor has offered affirmatively to disavow and discourage unlawful conduct by making statements discouraging unlawful graffiti at the art exhibition itself or even by organizing artists to convey that message in the public schools. Moreover, there is absolutely no evidence that individuals viewing the exhibition will be impelled to respond with "imminent lawless conduct."
Lawyers for the City well know -- or should know -- that the exhibition does not even remotely cross the Brandenburg line and that the City's attempted censorship cannot be sustained under current First Amendment doctrine. We can only conclude, therefore, that either the City's lawyers failed properly to advise City administrators with respect to this matter or that City administrators failed to heed their lawyers' advice. In either event, the result is disappointing.
We strongly urge the Mayor's Office to reverse this decision and reinstate the permit.
Respectfully,
Arthur Eisenberg
Donna Lieberman
Beth Haroules
cc: Michael Cardozo, Esq.
Email
Print
Download
SPAM
LEAVE A COMMENT
