[jamesmccann]

The fact that the defendant used "washable chalk" does not make him innocent of vandalism, as some are suggesting.

Chalk can stain the side of a building if repeatedly used in the same place. Washing the building will reduce the chalk to a faint smudge, but restoring the side of the building to its original state before the offending still requires repainting/resurfacing in the same way cleaning spraypaint would.

In regards to limiting the use of the First Amendment - the right of the defendant to express his views have not been violated. The First Amendment has nothing to do with the vandalism charges he faces. He could have expressed his views over a medium that wasn't illegal, allowing him to defend himself via the First Amendment, but then he wouldn't have a need for defence, would he?

[cgag]

13 years wouldn't be reasonable if he wrote it in someone else's blood.

[mpyne]

As is repeatedly mentioned every single time a legal case hits the HN airwaves, the maximum sentence one might compose by sequentially stacking maximum penalties for all charges is not the sentence that is anywhere close to possibly being handed down for real.

From one of anigbrowl's comments on here: " The maximum penalty for vandalism in California (which is what this case is about) is 3 years. It isn't possible to get a 13 year sentence for vandalism in California. In fact, since the defendant has no previous convictions for vandalism that I'm aware of I'm pretty sure the maximum penalty that can be imposed under CA law (CA PC 640.5/6) is community service and a $1000 fine. "

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5956128

[moflo]

I think the point was that the bank's claim that $6,000 was spent cleaning the sidewalk is bogus. Regular chalk is indeed difficult to remove from porous surfaces like brick or concrete, but this type washes off in the rain. My kids use it regularly on our patio, which at the moment is spotless despite my expending zero effort removing their previous artwork.