Question

Facts:

For many years, New York City has had to deal with vandalism and defacement of public property caused by unauthorized graffiti. In an effort to stop the damage, the city banned the sale of aerosol spray-paint cans and broad-tipped indelible markers to persons under age twenty-one years of age. The new rule also prohibited people from possessing these items on property other than their own. Within a year, five people under age twenty-one were cited for violations of these regulations and 871 individuals were arrested for actually making graffiti.

Lindsey Vincenty and other artists wished to create graffiti on legal surfaces, such as canvas, wood and clothing. Unable to buy supplies in the city or to carry them into the city from elsewhere, Vincenty and others filed a lawsuit on behalf of themselves and other young artists against Michael Bloomberg, the city's mayor and others. The plaintiffs claimed that, among other things, the new rules violated their right to free speech.

Questions:

1. How can the plaintiffs argue that the city's new rules violate their freedom of speech? Explain using legal principles from chapter four.
2. How can the city's mayor and others argue that the new rules do not result in a free speech violation? Explain using legal principles from chapter four.

Answer 1

The First Amendment was drafted with the objective of exerting importance on the freedom of speech and expression rights of an individual as well as the freedom of religion which he or she may enjoy. The government or any legal body has no right to force a person to forego his religious ideas, duties and principles. In the same way, the government or the legal body cannot restrict an individual from expressing his or her views in public.

However, Governments do have put certain limitations and restrictions on the way an individual may exhibit his right of freedom of speech used in Free Speeches. Free speeches are usually aimed at creating controversies and inciting riots among different groups of the society. Free speeches working with such objective, are unethical and invalid and must be stopped. Such kind of free speeches are termed as criminal hate speeches.

There are, primarily, three kinds of criminal statutes that are not allowed to be used in context involving speeches and the First Amendment:

• Fighting words statute

Even though the First Amendment exerts protection to peaceful speech, if speech has any kind of probability of creating danger to the audiences or public, it can be regulated and monitored under law. This includes the usage of any kind of fighting and inciting words in the speech. These are the words which can stir anger and animosity among the public and hamper peace.

• Hate Crime

Hate Crime statute is used to exert punitive measures to any kind of social conduct done with the objective of targeting a special sect or group of public. The target of the group can be based on age, gender, occupation, race, belief, religion, sexual orientation, etc.

• Incitement to Riot

Incitement to riot has been included under the regulation of clear danger exception. This statute exercises control on activities and events which have definite probability of causing riots. This statute must monitor, regulate as well as prohibit any kind of anti-social lawless actions, advocating threat and danger to the general masses.

However in the given case, the plaintiffs, Lindsey and other artists wished to create graffiti on legal surfaces but because of the new law, they were not getting the supplies for the same. this is a clear violation of the First Amendment and their right to freedom of speech and expression. The city’s new rule is depriving them from the supplies for graffiti creation and restricting their basic right.

The city’s mayor can argue that graffiti of any kind triggers hate crime and can be considered as an incitement to riot. Usually artists express their views about social causes in the form of graffiti. This view can be hurting for certain segment of society and hence, the new rule is quite valid in restricting the scope and purview of graffiti.