[ypubnnbe] Graffiti

Graffiti is interesting.  It is certainly a speech act, but most people will say they support freedom of speech in principle, but not that.

It is a good speech medium because it is difficult to suppress, to guard to all public surfaces.  It requires no special privilege or wealth to exercise, and minimal special equipment.  As such, it can function as an escape valve.

What would the world be like if graffiti were protected speech?  It would be covered in graffiti, of course.  For starters, any facade paid for by tax payers would be fair game for graffiti, and the price for cleaning it (at what frequency?) would also be paid for by taxes, and understood as the social cost of free speech.

In an extreme scenario, any publicly visible private surface would also be permissible.  The price is simply borne by the private owner as part of the price of owning property convenient and accessible to the public.  Inconvenient properties would be less targeted by graffiti.

It would be very difficult to have physical public advertising: billboards, posters, etc.  Any good location would also be a good location for graffiti.

To what extent may private parties take measures to thwart graffiti?  Graffiti-resistant surfaces?  Landmines?  You are now suppressing speech, deemed beneficial to society.

What do we do when a STOP sign is obscured in graffiti, resulting in a traffic accident?  Is freedom of speech more important than public safety?

Graffiti nowadays seems dominated by "boring" speech: mere tagging.

Now that it's legal, will the rich and powerful simply dominate the graffiti produced?  The goal of democratizing speech fails.