
California man faces 13 years in jail for scribbling anti-bank messages in chalk - o0-0o
http://rt.com/usa/california-man-13-prison-banks-237/
======
tptacek
No he doesn't. _If_ he's convicted and _if_ he receives a custodial sentence
--- both big ifs, the latter moreso than the former --- he'll most probably be
sentenced concurrently, as all 13 counts are for the same crime.

Here's the statute:

[http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-
bin/displaycode?section=pen&gr...](http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-
bin/displaycode?section=pen&group=00001-01000&file=594-625c)

In refusing to hear the First Amendment arguments of Olson's attorney, the
judge is presumably just reading the statute narrowly; there is no "political
speech" exemption to the vandalism statute, nor should there be, since we're
talking about private property.

But it's hard to believe that any sane jury would recognize more than a few
dollars damage from water-soluble chalk, and equally hard to believe anyone
would receive a custodial sentence --- which would surely cost the city vastly
more to defend at its near-certain appeal --- for chalking a bank with a
political message.

Don't get your news from RT.

~~~
fnordfnordfnord
Sidewalks belong to banks now?

~~~
tptacek
Didn't he chalk the buildings, too? The bank is claiming damages, not the
city.

~~~
fnordfnordfnord
It's possible, so far I've only seen it claimed that he chalked the sidewalk.
But, I haven't found much in the way of an original source. If the HuffPo
pictures have it right, it's going to be a hard sell.

[http://www.10news.com/news/jeff-olson-man-who-used-chalk-
to-...](http://www.10news.com/news/jeff-olson-man-who-used-chalk-to-protest-
big-banks-faces-13-years-in-prison-13k-in-fines-062513)

[http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/23/alexander-
schaefer-...](http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/23/alexander-schaefer-
burnin_n_1696870.html)

~~~
tptacek
(For what it's worth, building or sidewalk, if the guy agreed to stop chalking
the buildings the city _obviously_ should have dropped the matter there.)

------
hedonist
13 years in prison for scribbling stuff in _chalk_. Yeah.

Just wondering who, exactly, will be going to jail, and how much time they'll
be serving to account for the various mortgage fraud & other abusive practices
BoA has been engaged in systematically over the years, e.g.:

\-
[http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/business/2012/10/24/bank...](http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/business/2012/10/24/bank-
of-america-mortgage-fraud/1654441/)

\- [http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2013/01/bank-of-america-
forec...](http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2013/01/bank-of-america-foreclosure-
reviews-new-part-iii.html)

The answer, of course, is almost certainly no one.

~~~
ars
He won't get 13 years.

People need to stop this practice of listing the maximum possible under best
(worst) possible conditions sentence.

If he doesn't have a criminal history he'll get a month of probation and
that's all.

~~~
emidln
Why should criminal history matter? He wrote something in fucking _CHALK_.
That he is being barred from mentioning anything related to free speech when
his method of conveying speech was a temporary (comparable to holding a sign)
and fleeting (from the rain, a hose, or a drunk on saturday night) is a
travesty.

~~~
CanSpice
Unfortunately that's the way the law works. If you write on some property that
isn't yours, it doesn't matter if it disappears in a second or lasts forever,
you've still written on some property that isn't yours and you've committed
vandalism in California.

The restriction to being able to exercise his freedom of speech is another
issue entirely.

------
zhemao
Wait, so the judge can order the lawyer not to talk about free speech. That's
like, a meta-violation of the first amendment. Not only can you not exercise
your 1st amendment rights, you can't even exercise your 1st amendment rights
to complain about not being able to exercise your 1st amendment rights.

~~~
shock-value
I really don't see how first amendment rights apply to his situation. You
can't spray paint over a billboard and then claim you're protected under the
first amendment, for example.

That being said, I don't even know that I'd consider writing with washable
chalk to be vandalism. Maybe "littering" or something, considering how easy it
is to wash off. Certainly nothing that should warrant any jail time (unless
you're talking about a habitual repeat offender or something).

~~~
xanderstrike
The article says he spent six months doing it a few times a week. I think that
qualifies as a habitual repeat offender.

~~~
zhemao
He's only a repeat offender if what he's doing is actually an offense. I don't
think you could consider chalking a public sidewalk to be a criminal offense,
unless you're willing to say that a kid who draws a hopscotch pad on his/her
neighborhood sidewalk is a juvenile offender.

------
draugadrotten
NSA taping all your phone calls and logging your emails, and now you get 13
years for chalk writing. But you still believe in _the land of the free and
the home of the brave_

You're Free.

Really Free.

As long as you're not Brave enough to criticize the rich in chalk.

Good night, and good luck.

~~~
tokenadult
Try the same experiment in Russia (the place of publication of this story) and
let us know how the experiment goes.

AFTER EDIT: I'm fully serious in the suggestion "try the same experiment in
Russia." Let's be empirical here. Once we know how a lot of actual cases turn
out, we have something to talk about that is more informative than one
anecdote.

P.S. The pattern of upvotes and downvotes on this comment is especially
interesting in light of the replies it has received.

~~~
strlen
As a former USSR immigrant, I'll just leave this Soviet joke out there:

An American tells a Russian that there's free speech in American; that anyone
is free to just go infront of a government building and yell "American
president is an idiot." The Russian responds that this is no big deal -- in
Russia anyone is also free to go in front of a government building and yell
"American president is an idiot."

For the record, I strongly support the bill of rights (I also hold the
fanatical and extremist belief that there's another integer between the
integers 1 and 3...) and am very much opposed to the surveillance state,
hounding of whistle blowers, cruel treatment of prisoners, war on drugs, and
so forth. I also understand reasons for Snowden to travel to/through those
states (he does not want to go to prison and no one else is willing to have
him).

However, I'll say this unequivocally: from a world-wide perspective, United
States is far ahead of rest of the world (including many other liberal
democracies) in terms of value put on civil liberties. Most countries are far
more communitarian -- there are simply far more exceptions to free speech,
privacy, etc... rights and (unlike in the US) many of those exceptions aren't
even rooted in protection from a "clear and present danger."

(Related:
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/And_you_are_lynching_Negroes](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/And_you_are_lynching_Negroes)
)

~~~
rmc
_there are simply far more exceptions to free speech, privacy, etc_

Actually, in many ways I'd say that the EU has better privacy rights than the
US. The Data Protection Directive covers a lot more privacy stuff than is
covered by US law.

You're right about "free speech", more things are legal to say in the USA than
in EU countries, however that's (I think) at the expense of other human
rights. If you give more free speech rights, you take away other rights (e.g.
the free speech rights of the Westboro Baptist church to picket funerals takes
away the right to privacy and happiness for the family who are burying a
family member. The free speech rights to say "$PERSON has erectile
disfunction" takes away the right to privacy of $PERSON, etc.). It all depends
on how much you value some things. (How much do you value privacy, how much do
you value free speech, how much do you value right to life of marginalized
groups etc)

 _(I 'm using EU because I'm more familiar with it)_

------
xanderstrike
> Over the course of the next six months Olson visited the Bank of America
> branch a few days per week, leaving behind scribbled slogans such as "Stop
> big banks" and "Stop Bank Blight.com."

I was feeling for the guy until I read this. He spent half a year writing
disparaging messages outside of a business, that's an unstable guy. If I
worked in that bank, seeing some guy writing crap that I have to clean up day
after day for six months, I would certainly consider him a vandal. If this
were a private residence or a family owned business, it would be harassment
and they would probably be able to get a restraining order.

This is a clear-cut vandalism case. Your first amendment rights don't extend
to defacing others' property, even if the defacement only lasts a few days,
and even if the property you're defacing belongs to criminals. Two wrongs
don't make a right.

~~~
_delirium
Your objection here actually makes it sound like you're objecting to the
speech more than the chalking.

Under existing constitutional law, he would've had a right to spend every day
for six months standing on the sidewalk outside the bank holding the "Stop big
banks" message on a picket sign. That isn't harassment, even if it were a
family-owned business (though residences are a murkier area), unless he were
doing things like attempting to block the entrance, or shouting intimidating
stuff at customers. Sidewalks are a traditional public forum, and picketing on
them is protected, including picketing against the business located there.

So there's nothing illegal with the content part: disparaging the business on
a daily basis, right on the sidewalk outside their business. The method,
writing it in chalk _on_ the sidewalk, I'll agree, is not allowed. But it does
not seem much worse than standing on the sidewalk with a picket, when it comes
to what you seem to find offensive about the conduct.

------
icegreentea
Ok... so this is the relevant law as far as I can tell [1]

So, the reason why his maximum sentence is 13 years is because, the maximum
sentence for a single act of vandalism of damages over $400 (see subsection b)
is 1 year in a county jail. He is being charged with 13 counts of vandalism
(presumably because they caught him vandalising 13 times).

Now, the Bank of America is claiming that it cost them $6000 to clean up all
the vandalism (which is conveniently just over 450 dollars per act).

So, for all the people outraged over 13 years for chalk, keep in mind in
california, vandalism charges are based on damages, not the means (which
really makes sense). That it stacks up to 13 years is kinda ridiculous, but
also pretty logical. It's not like its "oh, you vanadalized once and now
you're going to jail for 13 years", its "you vandalized 13 times, and now a
judge gets to decide how much cumulative punishment you're going to get".

You can point out all sorts of unfortunate points in how the law, damages, and
punishment is structured, but the whole point of the law is to leave room for
human discretion. The $400 dollar barrier seems kinda low, and that's really I
guess where the issue is... I guess and combined with Bank of America's
damages claims.

[1]
[http://law.onecle.com/california/penal/594.html](http://law.onecle.com/california/penal/594.html)

~~~
redblacktree
Not to mention that there is no way in hell that it legitimately cost BoA
$6000 to clean up sidewalk chalk 13 times. That's absurd on the face of it.
You can hose it off in, at maximum, an hour. I can easily hire a guy for $50
to hose off the sidewalk for an hour. $450 for that job is ridiculous.

------
jpablo
Afraid of ending on the wrong side of this debate, but:

\- I'm sure, if convicted, it's unlikely that he will get maximum penalty (13
years), sensationalist headers and all.

\- If someone was writing whatever (political speech, gang signs, etc) on my
property I sure would like them to be arrested and given a good punishment so
they won't do it again.

~~~
dlss
Wait, so you think maybe 1/13th of the max punishment (1 year in prison) is a
reasonable punishment for writing things in chalk on private property?

If we're talking community service, repaying the cost of cleanup, or that sort
of thing I agree with you... if we're talking about taking away years of
someone's life I'm really confused.

~~~
wheaties
He never said anything about any jail sentence being reasonable. He just said
13yrs is unreasonable.

~~~
dlss
> He never said anything about any jail sentence being reasonable. He just
> said 13yrs is unreasonable.

1\. It sounds like GP thinks jail is reasonable based on "I sure would like
them to be arrested and given a good punishment so they won't do it again."

2\. He actually didn't say that 13 years was unreasonable, he just said that
it was unlikely

------
nzealand
He faces up to 13 years jail, but based on current guidelines, he wont pay
more than $10,000 and perhaps 1-3 years probation.

[http://www.yolo.courts.ca.gov/forms/Sent%20Guideline%20-%20V...](http://www.yolo.courts.ca.gov/forms/Sent%20Guideline%20-%20Vio%201-1-13%20forward.pdf)

The problem is, if he violates probation through additional activities, he
will then face escalated penalties.

------
doe88
Meanwhile in Wall Street, nobody has yet been held responsible for all the
financial crisis debacle that has cost billions to the americans.

------
iterationx
This is why we have trial by jury and Jury Nullification.

~~~
akama
Do you honestly think that this going to be a case involving Jury
Nullification? Jury Nullification is rarely used. Also a huge problem with
this article is that it mentioning the maximum sentence that someone can
receive for this. There is no evidence that he will be sentenced for that
amount of time.

~~~
Aloisius
Mentioning jury nullification is a surefire way to get out of jury duty though
I'd happily keep my mouth shut and serve for this case.

------
RealGeek
If convicted, the city will waste $715,000 of tax payer's money to keep him in
prison for 13 years.

If you think this case is an unreasonable waste of resources, please contact
Goldsmith and let him know.

Jan Goldsmith can be reached at 619-236-6220 or cityattorney@sandiego.gov

People vs. Olson is case #M153987

~~~
anigbrowl
Conviction != maximum sentence. I hope he won't be convicted but even if he is
he's more likely to be sentenced to 13 days than 13 years. It's not a
mandatory minimum.

------
angersock
It's delightful to see things like this whenever anybody champions Cali over
my state in flyover country for being conservative.

~~~
guelo
You enjoy seeing suffering and injustice in order to score meaningless
political points in your head? Doesn't seem healthy.

~~~
angersock
Oh, no, it's quite awful--don't get me wrong.

However, it serves as a funny sort of schadenfreude whenever there is plain
evidence that that state is not some mythical civil liberty land of milk and
honey, especially when one of the most common things I see talking about Texas
is how evil and republican it is and how there are no sex shops and all kinds
of damn fool other things.

At least headlines like this help people maybe reconsider where they want to
end up. :)

(If this were a federal decision, I'd be raging. Since it's just a state or
city being dumb, it's darkly funny.)

------
m4tthumphrey
This story made me cry and actually made me feel better for living in the UK,
which in turn has made me cry more.

------
quackerhacker
Prohibiting his lawyer from mentioning First Amendment rights is ridiculous!
What good are the foundations of our society, if they are _not_ upheld in a
court of law.

This really is my only gripe. I can actually understand the reason why it
would be _considered_ vandalism, but the purpose of the case I think is to
oppress the message he was sending (he pissed off the bank obviously...that's
where I'm happy). This is why we have rights to protests, even though it is
chalk, if everyone did it, it still is graffiti.

~~~
anigbrowl
_Prohibiting his lawyer from mentioning First Amendment rights is ridiculous!_

No it isn't. The jury is not competent to examine constitutional arguments.
The correct place for that debate is the Court of Appeals.

~~~
quackerhacker
What would the jury have to prove beyond a doubt, that he did it, not if it's
morally acceptable, right?

If that's the case, it will come down to plea bargaining. Disappointing. Too
bad it didn't rain away the evidence (even though it was caught on camera).

~~~
anigbrowl
That's what the jury would decide, yes (it's up to the prosecutor to prove it,
but I know what you meant). It's quite possible that it'll go to trial, he'll
be convicted and get some nominal sentence like community service, then the
moral/legal question will be the subject of an appeal.

------
charonn0
Sure, he almost certainly will not face the full 13 year sentence if
convicted. Sure, the bar against first amendment arguments seem likely to be
struck down on appeal. Sure, it probably won't turn out as bad as the worst
case scenario.

These are all true.

There is something terribly wrong here, anyway. The fact that he's facing up
to 13 _years_ in prison for what amounts to graffiti or very-low-level
harassment (the article made no mention of threats, e.g.) is a very bad sign.

When the government, or private interests directing the government, can
threaten a dissenter with a decade or more in squalid[1], overcrowded[2],
deadly[3] prisons for minor nuisances, we are all endangered.

[1]:
[https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2013/05/29/cali-m29.html](https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2013/05/29/cali-m29.html)

[2]:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisons_in_California#Prison_g...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisons_in_California#Prison_growth_and_overcrowding)

[3]: [http://solitarywatch.com/2013/03/15/california-prison-
condit...](http://solitarywatch.com/2013/03/15/california-prison-conditions-
driving-prisoners-to-suicide/)

------
rdouble
This is what happens to graffiti artists, though. If you get busted you get
charged for every instance of graffiti that looks similar to what you got
caught doing.

~~~
DanBC
Is there a difference between graffiti art using permanent paints / inks /
dyes, and temporary political sloganeering using water washable chalk?

I'm not sure how a judge can exclude the constitution from a court case?

~~~
rdouble
I dunno about the judge or the specifics. It's a RT post so not sure how
accurate it is. The guy is in San Diego which is a very uptight republican
town, so they are using gang graffiti laws as a hammer. Sucks, but pretty
typical of how differences in locale can affect outcomes in the USA. If this
happened in SF nobody would care.

------
omonra
RT is not journalism - it's propaganda -
[http://www.cjr.org/feature/what_is_russia_today.php?page=all...](http://www.cjr.org/feature/what_is_russia_today.php?page=all&print=true)

Please do us all a favor and stop linking to it. If the story is real - a
credible source will talk about it; find and link to it.

------
ulysses
The San Diego Reader has a little more background, it's also clearer that he
was writing with chalk on city sidewalk:

[http://www.sandiegoreader.com/weblogs/news-
ticker/2013/jun/2...](http://www.sandiegoreader.com/weblogs/news-
ticker/2013/jun/23/he-chalks-the-line-city-attorney-prosecutes-man-fo/)

------
gromy
Meanwhile, “A three-judge federal court panel ordered the state to reduce its
prison population to 137.5% of design capacity by December 31.”

[http://www.cnn.com/2013/06/20/justice/california-prison-
over...](http://www.cnn.com/2013/06/20/justice/california-prison-
overcrowding/index.html)

------
just_hobbyst
OK, I don't know anything about US laws, but I really don't understand it. How
can a judge forbid mentioning constitution or amendments in court? I thought
constitution is the most important part of US law system and it seems this
judge overruled it just like that. How could he do this?

~~~
dragonwriter
> OK, I don't know anything about US laws, but I really don't understand it.
> How can a judge forbid mentioning constitution or amendments in court?

It seems to me that what happened is that the argument (which is one of law,
not of fact) has already been made _in court_ prior to the trial. The judge
has rejected it, and prohibited it from being raised _in the trial_ (and thus,
to the jury) as it is immaterial to the questions of fact the jury is to
decide.

Of course, if there is a conviction, the judge's rejection of the argument can
be challenged as legal error on appeal.

------
grecy
My god, even when Americans try to protest and demonstrate and have their
voices heard, the corporate interests have the law clamp down on them and even
takes away their free speech rights.

Americans need to start protesting, big time, _right now_!

Things are going down hill, fast.

------
gromy
"13 counts of vandalism"

How is it just to charge him with more than one count of vandalism? He may
have only written in chalk once if they would have charged him immediately
after the first incident.

------
staunch
rt.com should be banned, just like dailymail. It's crap.

------
rhokstar
What a waste of tax payer money.

