How About Taking Some Of That $300 Million You Made Off Of Corporatizing Graffiti And Putting It Into New Subway Windows?

Not to sound like a fuddy-duddy, but I think most reasonable people agree that using acid to vandalize subway windows is not a form of free speech:

“I’ve seen it on every line, on almost every train,” said Andrew B. Albert, chairman of the New York City Riders Council, a state-sponsored advocacy group, who said the acid-based graffiti first appeared on subway windows about six months ago. Mr. Albert is a nonvoting member of the Transit Committee, which met yesterday.

He said the most common material used by the new breed of graffiti vandals is Armor Etch-All, an etching acid sold in art supply stores that is used by craftspeople to etch into glass or other materials. To create graffiti with the acid, it is mixed with paint or shoe polish, Mr. Albert said. And when applied to subway windows, it most commonly leaves broad, sweeping, indelible marks, which subway crews cannot remove in subway yards, as they do with painted graffiti.

Transit officials said that most subway windows are vulnerable and pose an expensive problem because they cost up to $130 each to replace. Only the newest of subway cars, acquired since about 2000, are resistant to the new generation of graffiti, because their windows are protected with Mylar, a plastic coating that can be peeled off and replaced.

. . .

The city’s resurgent graffiti problem, on buildings as well as subways, has not escaped the notice of City Hall. In December, Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg signed into law a ban on possession of “graffiti instruments,” including etching acid, by anyone under 21. Besides etching acid, the ban covers such things as aerosol paint and broad-tipped indelible markers, which are used by graffiti vandals on buildings.

Opponents of the city ban have said it infringes on freedom of speech. Yesterday, according to The Associated Press, a lawyer said he would file suit today in federal court in Manhattan to challenge the ban as “overly broad.” The lawyer, Daniel Perez, said he was representing seven high school and college students who are supported by Marc Ecko, a fashion designer.

I’m sure Ecko cares about civil liberties and not, say — just thinking out loud here — his “full-scale global fashion and lifestyle company that reported billings of over $300 million in its men’s sportswear division alone in 2002,” but no matter — the suit must go on:

. . . imagine if, during the days when seditious libel was regarded as unprotected expression, the government, in order to deter seditious publications, made possession of a printing press unlawfulunless the possessor of the printing press could affirmatively prove at trial that the printing device would be used for a lawful purpose.