« Of sneaky devices 2 | Main | Conflict of interest »
Billboard “vandals”
By Steven | November 15, 2011
Let’s put aside the law for a moment. No doubt the Police can come up with some charges – even if it’s just billsticking – against those who doctored hundreds of National Party billboards by adding the phrases “The Rich Deserve More” and “Drill it, Mine it, Sell it”.
There is no general defence of “freedom of expression”, and although the courts are required to interpret and apply offences consistently with the right to freedom of expression (subject to demonstrably justified limitations), sometimes there’s not much wiggle room for argument.
My point here is different. I think this action was kind of cool. It wasn’t mindless vandalism. It was essentially a prank. It didn’t do much harm. It was contributing more to actual democratic debate about policy than National’s glib billboards were. The added slogans weren’t outright misleading. They actually engaged in the debate; or at least tried to spark one. They were trying to move things beyond the tightly controlled, John-Key-centric and argument-averse campaign being run by National. They had style. They’re pretty funny. They have achieved massive publicity. I admit I tend to sympathise with the sentiment, too, but I like to think I’d feel the same if it were any other parties’ billboards. The other parties’ billboards that I’ve seen aren’t any better than National’s. I should also note that National’s seven pledges billboards are perhaps the most policy-heavy billboards I’ve seen. Good on them for that, even if the promises are focus-grouped to within an inch of their lives.
If the “vandals” broke the law, I’m not going to stand in line and berate them for it. I wouldn’t want to take this comparison too far, but the point is worth making: there’s barely a social movement in the world that hasn’t broken laws to draw attention to their cause – suffragettes, land protesters, environmental campaigner, civil rights workers, anti-apartheid movement, Ghandi, you name it, they all broke laws. I suppose you might say that being punished for it is part of what makes a stand like that significant. Facing the music also draws attention to the cause. Maybe so. But I really wonder if it’s worth the candle.
I think the campaign as a whole would be better for a political culture that tacitly allowed for a bit of subversive tit-for-tat – not wanton destruction of billboards, but clever message-jamming. Is it completely hopeless to imagine an election culture where National responded to this by chuckling, then saying, “well, let’s talk about our mining policy and why we think it’s good for the country”, and then dreaming up a fiendish prank to expose the hypocrisy in the Greens’ billboards?
Topics: Protest speech | 50 Comments »
50 Responses to “Billboard “vandals””
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
November 15th, 2011 at 11:22 pm
Exactly my thoughts.
It’s the election campaign equivalent of a Tui billboard prank.
November 16th, 2011 at 12:14 am
Yes, agreed. I’ll be interested to see if anything comes of the National Party claim that the stickers beach the election financing laws now that the perp has been identified. There ought to be some Bill of Rights wiggle room there, and if not we may begin to see how much of an infringement on political speech those laws really are.
November 16th, 2011 at 10:43 am
As for electoral laws: the questions seem to me to be:
1. Are these stickers “advertisements”. I suspect the answer is “yes”, but I don’t think that’s certain.
2. Can they reasonably be regarded as encouraging you not to vote for National in the election? This depends how much much you give the context: the stickers themselves “The Rich Deserve More”, and “Drill it, Mine it, Sell it” are not at all election-related, they’re not really much by themselves at all. They only take on meaning because they are placed near advertising for the National Party, which is authorised, and which the people sticking the stickers have nothing to do with. If the advertisement is the sticker, and nothing else, I don’t know that I see the necessary encouragement.
May 25th, 2020 at 6:09 am
… [Trackback]
[…] Here you will find 928 additional Info to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=514 […]
May 27th, 2020 at 11:36 am
… [Trackback]
[…] Read More here on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=514 […]
June 3rd, 2020 at 7:51 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Find More on on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=514 […]
July 23rd, 2020 at 7:32 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Info on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=514 […]
July 29th, 2020 at 10:10 am
… [Trackback]
[…] Information on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=514 […]
August 1st, 2020 at 5:49 am
… [Trackback]
[…] Find More to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=514 […]
August 5th, 2020 at 3:49 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] There you can find 65378 additional Information to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=514 […]
August 9th, 2020 at 10:46 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Information to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=514 […]
August 16th, 2020 at 4:46 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Read More to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=514 […]
August 27th, 2020 at 3:39 am
… [Trackback]
[…] Read More here to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=514 […]
August 31st, 2020 at 11:17 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Read More here on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=514 […]
September 1st, 2020 at 1:22 am
… [Trackback]
[…] Here you will find 3302 additional Info to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=514 […]
September 2nd, 2020 at 6:39 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Here you will find 83054 more Info to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=514 […]
September 20th, 2020 at 5:51 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Information to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=514 […]
October 4th, 2020 at 7:45 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] There you will find 69227 additional Info on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=514 […]
October 6th, 2020 at 12:17 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] There you can find 27671 more Info on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=514 […]
November 9th, 2020 at 1:37 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Info on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=514 […]
November 26th, 2020 at 1:49 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Information to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=514 […]
November 28th, 2020 at 5:16 am
… [Trackback]
[…] Read More Information here on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=514 […]
December 2nd, 2020 at 5:20 am
… [Trackback]
[…] Find More on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=514 […]
December 10th, 2020 at 8:57 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Read More here on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=514 […]
December 25th, 2020 at 5:31 am
… [Trackback]
[…] There you will find 52633 additional Information to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=514 […]
December 26th, 2020 at 6:38 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Info on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=514 […]
January 1st, 2021 at 2:09 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Read More on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=514 […]
March 14th, 2021 at 2:39 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Information on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=514 […]
April 5th, 2021 at 11:22 am
… [Trackback]
[…] Info on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=514 […]
May 4th, 2021 at 1:15 am
… [Trackback]
[…] Information on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=514 […]
May 18th, 2021 at 7:47 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Here you can find 66858 more Information to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=514 […]
May 27th, 2021 at 12:08 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Read More Info here on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=514 […]
June 4th, 2021 at 11:17 am
… [Trackback]
[…] Here you will find 18498 more Info to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=514 […]
June 26th, 2021 at 12:01 am
… [Trackback]
[…] There you can find 72404 more Info on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=514 […]
June 28th, 2021 at 12:33 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Find More on on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=514 […]
June 29th, 2021 at 11:14 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Find More here to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=514 […]
July 3rd, 2021 at 5:55 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Find More to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=514 […]
July 16th, 2021 at 10:30 am
… [Trackback]
[…] Find More on on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=514 […]
August 20th, 2021 at 2:30 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Read More Information here to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=514 […]
September 15th, 2021 at 2:03 am
… [Trackback]
[…] Information to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=514 […]
November 1st, 2021 at 7:11 am
… [Trackback]
[…] Here you will find 33651 additional Info to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=514 […]
November 9th, 2021 at 5:50 am
… [Trackback]
[…] Read More on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=514 […]
November 13th, 2021 at 11:14 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Read More on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=514 […]
December 11th, 2021 at 8:11 am
… [Trackback]
[…] Here you will find 30536 more Info to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=514 […]
January 14th, 2022 at 4:32 am
… [Trackback]
[…] Find More Info here to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=514 […]
January 26th, 2022 at 2:04 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] There you will find 15063 more Info to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=514 […]
February 26th, 2022 at 3:30 am
… [Trackback]
[…] Find More Information here to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=514 […]
April 9th, 2022 at 9:33 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] There you will find 15704 more Info to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=514 […]
April 15th, 2022 at 10:47 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Information on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=514 […]
May 5th, 2022 at 11:57 am
… [Trackback]
[…] There you can find 10207 more Info to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=514 […]