Detroit Beautification Project - Eastern Market Murals Vandalized

[Wesley Mouch]

Promoting graffiti as art has its drawbacks, I suppose.

Was my first reaction. The irony of graffiti on graffiti.

Stepping back, I think calling any public art graffiti is oversimplification. Graffiti in my mind anyway was the illicit part of the act. Not the quality of what was put on. Clearly there is some modern-day graffiti that has high artistic value. Some does not.

In a civilized society, nobody should be destroying or marking anything that belongs to anyone else.

[gvidas]

Was my first reaction. The irony of graffiti on graffiti.

Stepping back, I think calling any public art graffiti is oversimplification. Graffiti in my mind anyway was the illicit part of the act. Not the quality of what was put on. Clearly there is some modern-day graffiti that has high artistic value. Some does not.

In a civilized society, nobody should be destroying or marking anything that belongs to anyone else.

Our fair city has recently offered a set of definitions.

What is defined as graffiti?

The city defines graffiti in municipal code section 9-1-3: "Unauthorized drawings, lettering, illustrations or other graphic markings on the exterior of a building, premises or structure which are intended to deface or mar the appearance of the building, premises or structure."

Are murals graffiti?

No. The code defines art murals in section 3-7-2 as "any mosaic, painting or graphic art, which is applied to a building and does not contain any brand name, product name, letters of the alphabet that spell or abbreviate the name of any product, company, profession or business or any logo, trademark, trade name or any other type of commercial message."

[Mark Smiles]

Our fair city has recently offered a set of definitions.

The way I read it, the ordinance should be found unconstitutional, and those who enacted it are certainly guilty of not defending the Constitution.

“Commercial speech” is simply an arbitrary distinction, and restricts free speech, because commercial speech is simply a form of free speech. I don’t care if someone wants to call speech, religious, political, commercial, whatever, it’s all free speech. We should defend all our rights from government encroachment.

[Wesley Mouch]

The way I read it, the ordinance should be found unconstitutional, and those who enacted it are certainly guilty of not defending the Constitution.

“Commercial speech” is simply an arbitrary distinction, and restricts free speech, because commercial speech is simply a form of free speech. I don’t care if someone wants to call speech, religious, political, commercial, whatever, it’s all free speech. We should defend all our rights from government encroachment.

I found that a very odd distinction as well. Mr. Warhol's 'soup cans' would seem to have been prohibited.

I know many politicians don't like it, but the idea that individuals and groups of individuals [[unions & corporations) can speak freely has been clearly upheld by the highest court in the land. This is a very simple idea. Free speech can't be limited, except for a few safety and slander exceptions.