6.10.2008
Graffiti or Religious Expression?
If you paint religious symbols on the outside of your own fence, are you a vandal? That seems to be the question being asked in Des Moines, Iowa, where a Pagan couple is fighting the city over what they believe are their rights to free religious expression.
Ryle MacPebbles and his fence.
"A Des Moines couple say city officials have attacked their pagan religion and their civil rights after a complaint from a neighbor led to a notice to remove symbols that had been painted on the fence. Officials said the symbols are graffiti and must be removed. "Those are religious symbols; they're not mean or obnoxious in any way," said Ryle MacPebbles who lives in the 2000 block of Southeast Sixth Street. "I just don't like them telling me my religion isn't anything. "When they start making it personal with my religion, I'm sorry, we'll take it to court," said MacPebbles, a member of the American Pagan Church."
The law in Des Moines on this matter seems rather broad, saying that any sort of writing on any sort of surface "not intended for such use" constitutes graffiti. Designed to combat gang-related "tagging", it carries no exemptions for law-abiding homeowners expressing themselves. The MacPebbleses have appealed the remove notice, but city officials don't seem very sympathetic.
"The MacPebbleses appealed the removal notice on Monday. "Don't you think being a good neighbor you should have put them on your side of the fence?" asked hearing officer LeAnn Ducey, who will decide whether the symbols must be removed."
The Des Moines couple are considering going to the ACLU if the appeal doesn't go their way (and it doesn't look like it will). What do you think? Is the couple in the wrong here? Would there have been a complaint if they had painted Christian symbols on the fence? Is the Pentacle and two runes graffiti or protected religious speech?
Labels: graffiti, Iowa, law, litigation, Paganism, Religious Freedom
Comments:
As much as I sympathize with the MacPeebles, I think that they are on pretty shaky legal ground. Twenty years ago, in EMPLOYMENT DIVISION v. SMITH, the Supreme Court held that a law of general application which only incidentally burdens the practice of religion is not automatically rendered unconstitutional because of that incidental burden. That pretty much seems to be the case here. The local ordinance is one of general applicability, prohibiting all painted markings, and not just those similar to those the MacPeebles have displayed on their fence. Presumably the city would be equally vigorous in enforcing it against similar painted markings representing Christian, Jewish, and Islamic symbols.
I'm sorry that the MacPeebles are in this situation. Perhaps they should consider finding a way of placing these markings on their fence that is not violative of the local ordinance. Possibly painted plywood cut-outs of the symbols in question, fastened to the fence with screws.
Wow! I grew up in Des Moines. It was a stifling environment back then and perhaps still is.
If I lived in DM now, I would immediately go out and paint a UU flaming chalice on the outside of my fence and encourage others to do the same with their religious symbols.
From the article and previous comments it seems that these people are out of luck.
That said, this raises a serious question of personal property. Does the fence belong to the MacPeebles? If so, do they not get to determine what it's purpose is? Perhaps it's purpose for them is, in part, to display sacred symbols or art.
Would the law apply if they were painted on the walls of their home? On their roof? What if they paint their fence polka-dots or leopard-print? For me, this is really a matter of personal property rights and not a religious issue.
In chicago we have a very famous house that is painted with leopard spots. It's the home of the local Radial Faeries, and to say that it's an interesting sight to behold is putting it mildly.
I'm always distressed when the government tries to apply themselves to my property or rights. On public property? of course the symbols don't belong. But on private property? One could make an equally valid case for a "beware of dog" sign on the fence. It's rather absurd in my mind.
Maybe they should remove the fence markings and paint the runes on the outside of the house.
In the People's Republic of Easton, Bristol, there is a house with all of the wars fought by the USA since 1945 painted on the side of house. I guess they wouldn't get away with that in Des Moines.
I'd love to see the Radical Faeries' leopard spot house - any chance of posting a photo of it on the web somewhere?
In this case, the markings are not offensive to general sensibilities so I think that morally they should be allowed to keep them. Though as Brock says, the legal precedent will probably say otherwise.
Another thought: there is a precedent in the form of apotropaic marks - maybe they could use this in their defence?
I agree with Theo. The intent of graffiti laws is clearly to deter misuse of property not your own. Maybe they could go get a permit for their fence, write on the application that the purpose is for privacy and religious expression, and go from there.
An argument against the wording of the rule might be to point out the spray-on snow that people use on their own windows. That's not what windows are for, obviously, but people do it all the time.
It's a shame that governements are trying to supress people who want to express themselves. I cannot see what is offesive about a few protection symbols. - Maybe they should get a big banner printed and hang that from the fence.
Dawn x
Post a Comment
As much as I sympathize with the MacPeebles, I think that they are on pretty shaky legal ground. Twenty years ago, in EMPLOYMENT DIVISION v. SMITH, the Supreme Court held that a law of general application which only incidentally burdens the practice of religion is not automatically rendered unconstitutional because of that incidental burden. That pretty much seems to be the case here. The local ordinance is one of general applicability, prohibiting all painted markings, and not just those similar to those the MacPeebles have displayed on their fence. Presumably the city would be equally vigorous in enforcing it against similar painted markings representing Christian, Jewish, and Islamic symbols.
I'm sorry that the MacPeebles are in this situation. Perhaps they should consider finding a way of placing these markings on their fence that is not violative of the local ordinance. Possibly painted plywood cut-outs of the symbols in question, fastened to the fence with screws.
Wow! I grew up in Des Moines. It was a stifling environment back then and perhaps still is.
If I lived in DM now, I would immediately go out and paint a UU flaming chalice on the outside of my fence and encourage others to do the same with their religious symbols.
From the article and previous comments it seems that these people are out of luck.
That said, this raises a serious question of personal property. Does the fence belong to the MacPeebles? If so, do they not get to determine what it's purpose is? Perhaps it's purpose for them is, in part, to display sacred symbols or art.
Would the law apply if they were painted on the walls of their home? On their roof? What if they paint their fence polka-dots or leopard-print? For me, this is really a matter of personal property rights and not a religious issue.
In chicago we have a very famous house that is painted with leopard spots. It's the home of the local Radial Faeries, and to say that it's an interesting sight to behold is putting it mildly.
I'm always distressed when the government tries to apply themselves to my property or rights. On public property? of course the symbols don't belong. But on private property? One could make an equally valid case for a "beware of dog" sign on the fence. It's rather absurd in my mind.
Maybe they should remove the fence markings and paint the runes on the outside of the house.
In the People's Republic of Easton, Bristol, there is a house with all of the wars fought by the USA since 1945 painted on the side of house. I guess they wouldn't get away with that in Des Moines.
I'd love to see the Radical Faeries' leopard spot house - any chance of posting a photo of it on the web somewhere?
In this case, the markings are not offensive to general sensibilities so I think that morally they should be allowed to keep them. Though as Brock says, the legal precedent will probably say otherwise.
Another thought: there is a precedent in the form of apotropaic marks - maybe they could use this in their defence?
I agree with Theo. The intent of graffiti laws is clearly to deter misuse of property not your own. Maybe they could go get a permit for their fence, write on the application that the purpose is for privacy and religious expression, and go from there.
An argument against the wording of the rule might be to point out the spray-on snow that people use on their own windows. That's not what windows are for, obviously, but people do it all the time.
It's a shame that governements are trying to supress people who want to express themselves. I cannot see what is offesive about a few protection symbols. - Maybe they should get a big banner printed and hang that from the fence.
Dawn x
Links to this post:
