Zombietime reader “Chicken Kiev” submits these photos of graffiti in restrooms in Dwinelle Hall on the U.C. Berkeley campus:
For those not familiar with Dwinelle Hall, it is a large, sprawling building that houses many of the liberal arts and language departments at Cal.
A different restroom sported this sticker.
(Note: This is not a photo of me, but rather
1Ringo the Gringo on Oct 27, 2008 at 10:18 am:
I wonder if the person responsible for the “Support our poops” scribbling is the same person holding the “Just Poop” sign seen here: http? : //finickypenguin.files.wordpress.com/2008/06/just-poop_lgf-0801.jpg
Quote
2Ringo the Gringo on Oct 27, 2008 at 10:19 am:
I’ll try that link again:
http://finickypenguin.files.wordpress.com/2008/06/just-poop_lgf-0801.jpg
Quote
3Dave Surls on Oct 27, 2008 at 4:14 pm:
College kids are often clueless nitwits. What else is new?
Quote
4DangerousNate on Oct 27, 2008 at 8:20 pm:
“Support our poops” It’s all you’ll be doing when the troops stop protecting your freedom of speech.
Quote
5Fenris on Oct 27, 2008 at 9:53 pm:
Is it just a trend? I’m a liberal arts student myself, and the Fine Arts Building at the University of Houston is covered in graffiti (mostly apolitical graffiti, spoutings of 4chan memes, but still.) What’s the word on Dwinelle wall scribbles that DON’T take a stand of any kind?
Quote
6Ken on Oct 28, 2008 at 12:21 am:
The Intifada sticker is one thing, but I’m not quite sure the “fuck the troops” thing is anti-military slander as much as it’s just some childish limerick. It’s on the bathroom wall, for chrissake.
Quote
7SSG David Medzyk on Oct 28, 2008 at 9:39 pm:
I have GOT to find one of these mindless drips, and after beating the ever-lovin’ hell out of him, ask him: “How do you like your anarchy now, asshole?”
Quote
8Skip Smith on Oct 29, 2008 at 1:56 pm:
Contrasting message #4 with message #7 is funny.
Quote
9Palestine isn't real. on Nov 1, 2008 at 5:18 am:
#7 is a crybaby. Anarchy has nothing to do with ‘fucking the troops’. Maybe the writer likes a man (or woman) in uniform.
Also, if you’re really in the armed service, then you shouldn’t have any problem with free speech, seeing as how to supposed fight to defend it.
Sure, you can have your freedom of speech too, but threats of violence aren’t the answer, crybaby.
Quote
10Sisyphus on Nov 1, 2008 at 11:16 pm:
I always thought you had to be intelligent to be a student at U.C. Berkeley.
Quote
11Dave Surls on Nov 2, 2008 at 12:58 am:
“you shouldn’t have any problem with free speech, seeing as how to supposed fight to defend it.”
Yeah, well, if you’re going around saying “Fuck the troops”, don’t be surprised if someday the troops decide they don’t feel like fighting for your rights any more.
Quote
12Ken on Nov 2, 2008 at 1:49 am:
“Yeah, well, if you’re going around saying ‘Fuck the troops’, don’t be surprised if someday the troops decide they don’t feel like fighting for your rights any more.”
Why? Are they only allowed to defend speech that they like?
Quote
13Dave Surls on Nov 2, 2008 at 5:21 pm:
Because, Mao Tse Ken, if you trash people they usually don’t respond by getting all enthusiastic about protecting your right to trash them.
And, tomorrow, I’ll explain to you why it isn’t a good idea to rest your head in an oven.
Quote
14Ken on Nov 2, 2008 at 8:55 pm:
American soldiers are defenders of the US Constitution. They defend the Bill of Rights that gives everyone the freedom to say whatever they want. I don’t support ignorant harrassment of servicemen (and, as I said before, I think this was more a case of childish graffitti than anything else), but neither do I think anyone has to the right to quit defending those rights simply because someone said something they don’t like.
“they usually don’t respond by getting all enthusiastic about protecting your right to trash them”
Understandable…but then don’t go around saying “I protect your rights” if you’re not willing to do it.
Quote
15Freedom Now on Nov 3, 2008 at 3:49 am:
Ken,
Everyone has the right to say many stupid things, but everyone else also has the right to criticize in return. This is not an infringement of the freedom of speech.
Anyway, you say that, “I’m not quite sure the “fuck the troops” thing is anti-military slander as much as it’s just some childish limerick”… While it may be childish, the statement is still anti-military and worthy of criticism in return. Furthermore, two different people did the writing.
I was a graffiti tagger for many years and recognize that the “Fuck the troops” part was done with a streaker paint stick in classic West Coast style with the inevitable East Coast influence. The writer is well practiced in tagging as revealed by the lettering style, but the second writer used a marker that is not well suited for tagging and was clearly made by someone completely unskilled in tagging. Therefore, a different person added the limerick part after the original tagger left his or her ANTI-MILITARY comment.
Quote
16Ken on Nov 3, 2008 at 4:06 pm:
“This is not an infringement of the freedom of speech”
Of course, but consider what Dave said. He didn’t say “don’t be surprised if those troops call you an asshole,” he said “don’t be surprised if someday the troops decide they don’t feel like fighting for your rights any more,” which is completely different. Willfully giving up the defense of someone’s free speech because they said something insulting to you is not “criticizing in return,” it’s dereliction of duty. You can’t pick and choose what kind of free speech you defend…it’s all or nothing.
“the statement is still anti-military and worthy of criticism in return”
I guess I should re-phrase my sentence: it’s certainly worthy of criticism, but I don’t think we should take it too seriously seeing as how it’s something scrawled on a bathroom wall. People write all kinds of stupid things on bathroom walls and we don’t pay them any mind after we leave the stall. Now, if this was out in the street being paraded around on a sign in 12-inch tall letters, that might be something else. Have you ever paid much heed to something you saw on a bathroom wall?
“two different people did the writing”
It very easily could have been written by the same person, using two different pens, while modifying their handwriting for effect. I can see quite a bit of similarity in the P’s and S’s.
Quote
17Dave Surls on Nov 3, 2008 at 5:29 pm:
“You can’t pick and choose what kind of free speech you defend”
Wanna bet? I sure can. And, so can the government.
If you don’t think that’s true, then you better have a look at Schenck v. United States, and what the Smith Act says, just to give two examples of certain situations when the government not only won’t protect free speech, but will punish it.
Personally, I wouldn’t lift a finger to defend the free speech of someone who is saying “Fuck the troops”. You want to go around saying that, and some troop gets pissed off, and kicks your ass…too bad for you.
Quote
18Ken on Nov 3, 2008 at 11:36 pm:
In addition to being a supporter of double standards, Dave, you’re also clearly an idiot who doesn’t know that Schenk was practically nullified by Brandenburg V. Ohio or that most of the Smith Act convictions were thrown out as unconstitutional, for example Yates V. United States or,to a lesser extent, Watkins V. United States.
When free speech can lead to “clear and present danger” then it’s not subject to the protection of the Constitution because “clear and present danger” infringes upon the rights of other citizens. In that case, yes, free speech should be limited, and I agree with that view.
However, writing inflammatory graffitti isn’t going to do much towards bringing about a state of “clear and present danger”…nor does it allow a US soldier to shrink the responsibility that he swears an oath to:
“I DO SOLEMNLY SWEAR (OR AFFIRM) THAT I WILL SUPPORT AND DEFEND THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES AGAINST ALL ENEMIES, FOREIGN AND DOMESTIC; THAT I WILL BEAR TRUE FAITH AND ALLEGIANCE TO THE SAME; AND THAT I WILL OBEY THE ORDERS OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES AND THE ORDERS OF THE OFFICERS APPOINTED OVER ME, ACCORDING TO REGULATIONS AND THE UNIFORM CODE OF MILITARY JUSTICE. SO HELP ME GOD.”
Did you catch that? “I WILL SUPPORT AND DEFEND THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES,” including, I would assume, the right of free speech so long as it doesn’t present a “clear and present danger” that may infringe on anyone else’s rights.
“I wouldn’t lift a finger to defend the free speech of someone who is saying ‘Fuck the troops’”
Not surprising, since we’ve already nailed down the fact that you’ve got terrible double standards…
Either way, “fuck the troops” is crude, stupid, and disrespectful, but, if I were a US soldier, I’d be happy to defend anyone’s right to say something like that because I understand the content of the Consitution even if Dave Surls doesn’t.
Quote
19Dave Surls on Nov 4, 2008 at 3:32 am:
“In addition to being a supporter of double standards, Dave, you’re also clearly an idiot who doesn’t know that Schenk was practically nullified by Brandenburg V. Ohio”
Yes I do have double standards, and no Schenk wasn’t “practically nullified” by Brandenburg. In Brandenburg the SCOTUS simply (arbitrarily) set a standard under which government can abrogate the 1st Amendment guarantees of free speech or press, to whit: the 1st Amendment applies…”except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action.” And by that standard, Schenk, who was (among other things) urging people not to cooperate with the draft, still would have gone to prison…idiot.
As a matter of fact, what Schenk did is still illegal under federal law, namely this one:
TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 115 > § 2388
“(a) Whoever, when the United States is at war, willfully makes or conveys false reports or false statements with intent to interfere with the operation or success of the military or naval forces of the United States or to promote the success of its enemies; or”
“Whoever, when the United States is at war, willfully causes or attempts to cause insubordination, disloyalty, mutiny, or refusal of duty, in the military or naval forces of the United States, or willfully obstructs the recruiting or enlistment service of the United States, to the injury of the service or the United States, or attempts to do so—
Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both.”
So, I guess your claim that Schenk has been “nullified” is a bunch of hogwash.
“or that most of the Smith Act convictions were thrown out as unconstitutional”
Some of them were thrown out, but not because of the constitutionality of the law…idiot. And, that’s why the provisions of the Smith Act remain part of the U.S. Code…idiot.
‘When free speech can lead to “clear and present danger” then it’s not subject to the protection of the Constitution because “clear and present danger” infringes upon the rights of other citizens. In that case, yes, free speech should be limited, and I agree with that view.’
How interesting, because that happens to be what the SCOTUS said in Schenk v. U.S., so I guess that must mean you agree with the court’s decision, which upheld Schenk’s conviction. Justice Holmes: “The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent.”
Better lay off SCOTUS decisions, and stick to the Little Red Book, sport. You’re just making yourself look like a fool.
“because I understand the content of the Consitution even if Dave Surls doesn’t.”
Oh, I understand it well enough, though I doubt that you do. You can’t even spell Constitution correctly. Idiot.
Quote
20Ken on Nov 4, 2008 at 3:43 am:
“You can’t even spell Constitution correctly”
Oh God, picking on a misspelled word (despite the fact that I spelled it correctly two other times in the same passage). How pathetic.
Quote
21Freedom Now on Nov 4, 2008 at 5:00 am:
Ken,
Thanks for rephrasing your comment.
I still think it is worthy of criticism any time these time of comments appear. Dont forget that there have been several bombings of recruiting centers since Operation Iraqi Freedom. The center at Times Square was bombed and Brendan Walsh was sentenced to five years in prison for another bombing.
The anti-military sentiment of leftwing radicals is disgusting. Zombie has a bunch of pictures of those who support fragging at Bay Area protests. I’m sure they wouldnt say the same about the Cuban troops that committed mass executions on Che’s behalf at La Cabana fortress.
Quote
22Freedom Now on Nov 4, 2008 at 5:27 am:
By the way, a tagger’s obsession with lettering will never allow such a layman’s technique as what is written in the second part. That could only be written by the same person if the tagger wished to disguise his or her writing in the second piece. Why would anyone want to do that?
While the average person may not be able to tell, the writer in blue is a skilled tagger. He or she may have the ability to produce large pieces or at the very least is a prolific street tagger.
Every single letter that the tagger did in blue has been rehearsed many times. There are thousands of taggers that have the identical style as this person. They all rehearse the same styling. Penmanship becomes an obsession for these taggers. Once you achieve this level of tagging it is actually difficult to write as sloppy as the second part of this tag. You become completely absorbed in lettering and you tag on everything you write on. Even on job applications, school reports, etc…!
Note how this person wrote every word in one stroke. This person can write much faster than I can, but he or she doesnt win any awards for originality. The person in the second instance writes pathetically. Each word floats independent of each other, without any attempt at an overall compostion or the necessary speed technique that graffiti writers need. Most striking is the lack of confidence. This person is not comfortable with tagging on public places. He or she is not a tagger.
You are out of your depth on this point. These are two different people.
Quote
23Freedom Now on Nov 4, 2008 at 5:32 am:
Correction:
I still think it is worthy of criticism any time THIS TYPE of comments appear…
Quote
24DangerousNate on Nov 4, 2008 at 7:58 pm:
“I WILL SUPPORT AND DEFEND THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES,”
So wait, you can flip off the troops and you defend their right to do it, yet if a troops beats them up for flipping them off you call that infringing on their right?
Sure, beating them up is a bit extreme, but what about the troops freedom of speech?
Quote
25Ken on Nov 5, 2008 at 1:05 am:
“you call that infringing on their right?”
Of course! No one has the right to assault anyone for any reason less than self-defense (or very specific justifiable reasons as determined by a jury in a court of law).
Physical violence certainly infringes on another person’s rights and should be punished. If someone gives the finger to a soldier, that soldier has the right to give it back or get in the guy’s face. Actually beating him up is enough for a jail term as I see it, soldier or not, though I understand why they might want to beat the guy up. However, nothing gives anyone the right to physically harm someone.
Anti-military statements are protected speech so long as they don’t represent something that could lead to clear and present danger or infringe on another’s rights (and, no, you DON’T have the right to NOT be insulted, sorry. Parody is protected speech with hundreds of legal cases supporting it). This is the way the Constitution is interpreted in America and if you don’t like it, move out of America like I did.
PS- Obama won. I’ll refrain from gloating.
Quote
26Ken on Nov 5, 2008 at 1:08 am:
“You are out of your depth on this point”
Possibly. I’m not a tagger and know nothing about tagging, but it makes sense to me that the second part might have been done in a different hand and with a different marker (as I said: “for effect”) because the second half is the punchline.
Then again, I know nothing about tagging.
Quote
27Dave Surls on Nov 5, 2008 at 1:58 pm:
‘The fighting words doctrine, in United States constitutional law, is a limitation to freedom of speech as granted in the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. In its 9-0 decision, Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire (1942), the U.S. Supreme Court established the doctrine and held that “insulting or ‘fighting words,’ those that by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace” are among the “well-defined and narrowly limited classes of speech [which] the prevention and punishment of…have never been thought to raise any constitutional problem.”‘
‘The court has continued to uphold the doctrine but also steadily narrowed the grounds on which fighting words are held to apply. In Street v. New York (1969)[1], the court overturned a statute prohibiting flag-burning and verbally abusing the flag, holding that mere offensiveness does not qualify as “fighting words”. Similarly, in Cohen v. California (1971), the fact that Cohen had been arrested for wearing a jacket that said “fuck the draft” did not constitute uttering fighting words since there had been no “personally abusive epithets.”‘–wiki
So, what if we wanted to pass a law that made it illegal for a halfwit lefty to walk up to a soldier and say “Fuck the troops”.
Could we do it?
According, to the courts, I’d say the answer is yes.
Quote
28Ken on Nov 5, 2008 at 3:26 pm:
Did you miss this part?
mere offensiveness does not qualify as “fighting words”. Similarly, in Cohen v. California (1971), the fact that Cohen had been arrested for wearing a jacket that said “fuck the draft” did not constitute uttering fighting words since there had been no “personally abusive epithets.”
“Fuck the draft” doesn’t qualify as “fighting words,” so why would “fuck the troops?”
Quote
29TNC on Nov 5, 2008 at 4:48 pm:
Zombie, I’ve been digging your flicks at Zombietime for a while but I recently discovered Zomblog. Keep up the good work.
Freedom Now, I agree with most of what you are saying. That was definitely done by two people. However, the blue tag is not a fresh tag. The writer is clearly a bathroom scribbler with no skills, let alone the ability to do a dope piece. Peep this:
http://newcentrist.wordpress.com/2008/07/02/bay-area-graf/
Why does the Intifada sticker say “autonomy” at the bottom? None of the Palestinian terrorist organizations promote the notion of autonomy. Whether Judea and Samaria (the so-called “West Bank”) or in Gaza, Palestinian rule is highly authoritarian (Palestinian authority) if not totalitarian (Hamas).
Quote
30Dave Surls on Nov 5, 2008 at 6:12 pm:
‘“personally abusive epithets.”’
‘“Fuck the draft” doesn’t qualify as “fighting words,” so why would “fuck the troops?”’
Because it’s personally abusive if it’s directed at a troop, Clarence Darrow.
Quote
31Ken on Nov 5, 2008 at 9:08 pm:
Sure thing, Dave.
Next time a lefty yells “fuck the troops” at you, be my guest to take it to the Supreme Court and see how far you get.
Quote
32Dave Surls on Nov 6, 2008 at 12:38 am:
So, what if we wanted to pass a law that made it illegal for a halfwit lefty to walk up to a soldier and say “Fuck the troops”.
Could we do it?
According, to the courts, I’d say the answer is yes.
Try actually reading what I wrote, Karl Marx Jr.
Quote
33Freedom Now on Nov 7, 2008 at 6:27 pm:
Ken,
It is bizarre that you still promote this very unlikely scenario by saying, “but it makes sense to me that the second part might have been done in a different hand and with a different marker (as I said: “for effect”) because the second half is the punchline.”
This argument is based on a position of ignorance, which you readily admit when you say you know nothing about tagging. Your logic is solely based on conjecture and there is no factual basis to it.
If you want to be politically correct, yes, we can say it is possible… but we can say a lot of things are possible… even though they are not likely at all. The only method by which this example is possible, would be under a scenario in which the graffiti writer tried to disguise his or her penmanship. Why would anyone do that?
If you have studied any art form you will know that educating yourself in any field requires a lot of practice and an accumulation of knowledge on the fundamentals of the art. The person who wrote the second line is unpracticed and unknowledgeable of the basic fundamentals of tagging. Please dont underestimate tagging. It is a seasoned art form in which those who have learned its practice have become artisans in their chosen field (however juvenile it may be). Unfortunately, most people who tag are not very skilled and practiced in the techniques of tagging. As simple as the “Fuck the Troops” tag may appear, it is done by a skilled and practiced tagger. It is not possible for an experienced writer like this to ignore such fundamentals, which are drilled-in over long-term repetitive practice. My conclusion is based on my knowledge as a former tagger and as an educator. The learning process is something that you should understand when making comments on such things.
Basic fundamentals are never complicated. It is the accumulation of basic fundamentals that allows an artisan to create more complicated pieces of art. The second line of this graffiti shows complete ignorance of tagging fundamentals, so those two lines are not written by the same person unless he or she is trying to disguise his or her handwriting. That is a very remote possibility.
You are beating a dead horse…
Quote
34BeдьмoчкA on Oct 16, 2009 at 12:00 pm:
Прикольная тема, продолжайте. Иногда нахожу ответы, которые получить самому просто не хватает времени. Премного благодарен!
Quote