Thursday, September 13, 2012



Australia:  Graffiti vandal loses freedom of expression appeal

He sounds like a Leftist nut

A serial graffiti artist has lost his court fight for the right to paint over public advertising as an act of free expression.

Kyle Magee, a university student from Collingwood, told police he painted over an advertisement on a tram shelter as part of his personal protest against the global advertising industry.

He was convicted and fined $500 for damaging property.

Magee appealed against his punishment, arguing the Victorian Human Rights Charter gave him the right to deface advertising under freedom of expression.

The Supreme Court judge ruled the graffiti did not constitute a protected form of expression and he was ordered to pay the court costs.

Magee has previously spent weeks in custody for painting over city advertising.

Outside court, he refused to speak to reporters, taking issue with what he called a "corporate media presence".

SOURCE




13 comments:

Anonymous said...

I can smell him from here.

Bird of Paradise said...

Make him clean up all the graffitti with a tooth brush and tea cup

Anonymous said...

Free speech DOES NOT EXIST in Australia. Glad that I live here in the USA.

Anonymous said...

Free speech does not entitle someone the right to destroy,or deface the property of others.

Anonymous said...

1:30 AM does not enjoy unreserved so-called "free speech" in the USA, as he/she would know if following any of this site.
However, he/she is also exaggerating to say there is NO free speech in Australia.

Go Away Bird said...

And Obama and his goons are working to distroy FREE SPEECH here in america since they have totaly rejected the U.S. CONSTITUTION

Anonymous said...

Wow Bird - do you think they were ever likely to find it appealing in any way?

Anonymous said...

He appears to think he.should get to decide what people see in ads. Typical lib thinking, my view is more important than the property of others.

stinky said...

Those convicted of graffiti defacement should have to clean up all graffiti in their city. You can pro-rate the workload vs the number of those convicted.

This comes with the proviso that if the number of future graffiti defacers drops - as would likely happen if they had to actually clean up their own messes - the existing convicts would be left with that much more work to do, potentially a lot. Those convicted of encouraging such defacement would incur even higher penalties (to discourage existing convictees from recruiting others in order to ease their own workload).

Announce such a policy very clearly ahead of time and the problem will diminish; these guys are narcissistic, not stupid. This approach would also be excellent in schools.

Anonymous said...

You can't do that, Stinky, because it would take a job away from some government union slug.

Anonymous said...

I got a question. Do you guys wear tin-foil hats? You know, it might project your brains from liberal brainwave emissions.

stinky said...

You know, it might project your brains from liberal brainwave emissions.

I believe those are called "farts."

Anonymous said...

This has absolutely nothing to do with tin foil hats or conservative conspiracy. It's about a person with a twisted sense of morality who wrongly thinks he has the right to deface private and public property in the name of free speech. The events played out, and justice was served.

Nothing to see here, move along.