Just to make myself clear, I'm not against protesting per se but as long as it is done peacefully and leaving alone private properties by not defacing them and that a protest does not interrupt the normal course of business as an unintended consequence. It's worse when the intended consequence is to interrupt the normal course of a business. Protesting can be a tricky thing and sometimes the lines are blurred.
In Washington D.C. there are laws regarding graffiti and defacing private properties. In this case, the use of adhesive tapes and placards to alter signs at the Volta Bureau and such an action could be considered as defacing and even be called as "graffiti" (note my emphasis in the bold underline)
"(4) "Graffiti" means an inscription, writing, drawing, marking, or design that is painted, sprayed, etched, scratched, or otherwise placed on structures, buildings, dwellings, statues, monuments, fences, vehicles, or other similar materials that are on public or private property without the consent of the owner, manager, or agent in charge of the property, and the graffiti is visible from a public right-of-way.The Volta Bureau is a private property. Also, graffiti doesn't mean it has to be permanent per se. You can see they used adhesives (tape) and with posters that were used to cover up the signs. The question is, do they intend to leave such markings behind ?
"(5) "Graffiti material" means any aerosol can, bottle, spray device or other [*1614] mechanism designed to dispense paint or a similar substance under pressure, indelible marker, paint stick, adhesive label, and engraving device capable of leaving a visible mark on a natural or man-made surface.
From D.C. criminal defense lawyers.
DC Graffiti/Defacement Laws & Penalties
The offense of graffiti is pretty self explanatory. But this doesn’t just apply to spray painting on walls or marking up a fence. You could face this charge for keying a car or smearing mud over the property of another.
According to the law, this offense applies when writing, drawing figures, cutting, chipping, covering, painting, or marking on public property or the private property of another without their permission.
Generally this offense carries up to 180 days in jail and $1,000 in fines. You will also likely be required to perform community service and pay restitution if convicted of defacement or graffiti. - Ref: DC Code 22-3312.01Also, I've gotten reports of noise being made at near or inside the Omni Hotel in D.C. where the AGBell symposium is being held. This reminds me about D.C.'s local ordinance on creating noise during a protest. A few years back there was a protest at another hotel in D.C. where the problem of noise nuisance was raised.
An effort was undertaken in 2008 to toughen the District’s unusually liberal noise laws but the city’s labor organizations orchestrated, with the help of D.C. Council member Jack Evans (D-Ward 2), an amendment limiting it to residential areas. “A noise shall not be considered a noise disturbance if it is made during noncommercial public speaking during the daytime and does not exceed 80 decibels inside the nearest occupied residence in districts zoned R-1A, R-1B, R-2, R-3 or R-4” is the relevant passage cited by the city’s Department of Consumer and Regulatory Affairs. That means no recourse for Ms. Iwamoto, who lives in a commercially zoned neighborhood one block away from the Madison — or for the many other residents whom city officials have successfully lured to mixed-use developments aimed at enlivening the downtown.
Labor officials argue that protest is the only method available to workers to fight for their rights against adversaries with greater resources. But the demonstrations of the Madison workers were not aimed at getting a message across; they were intended to create a nuisance that would cost the hotel business. No other city, according to the advocacy group Noise Free America, allows unlimited amplification in the name of free speech. Indeed, courts have upheld limitations on amplification to safeguard public health and safety. No one is suggesting that anyone’s voice be stifled, only that it not be artificially — and noxiously — augmented.
I agree. It's one thing to protest with a show of solidarity and support, and another thing when protesters deface private properties and artificially create loud noises that can interrupt services and/or businesses. Businesses do have the right to protect their customers and businesses from such interruptions. Such an example would be to make so much noise at the hotel that CART services couldn't be provided adequately for those attending at AGBell's Listening and Spoken Language Symposium (and that the police had to intervene to stop the noise interruption).
Even Sean Gerlis said this about Deaf protesters defacing/desecrating a private property:
On behalf of Bobbie Beth Scoggins, Prez of NAD & myself, we NAD do not condone this behavior....to desecrate AGB's building.Glad to hear that the protest went without much of a hitch and was for the large part peacefully done despite a few obnoxious moments and the arrival of several police cars to the scene of the protest outside of the hotel building where the symposium was held, and that protesters were told to leave the hotel.
ADDENDUM: Sorry to say this but no where did I say the taping incident damaged the AGBell plaque signage on the front of its building. No where did I say that police complained. Although I seriously doubt the people inside of The Volta Bureau building were aware of the defacing that took place taking only minutes to do and removed. Just a matter of the fact that defacing did occur and I made it clear from the beginning of this blog that no permanent damage was done in the first place. Sorry Patti, your screaming and hyperventilating isn't helping all this. NAD made it clear that they supported the protest in principle but not the covering up the AGBell signs and such. We know which group is the more mature ones.
