Still, continued the piece in a less insightful way, "we hope the authorities catch them and put them to work cleaning up the various messes they’ve created, among other things. Beyond that natural desire, however, we hope the individuals responsible can be shown that expressing themselves isn’t a crime, but that they need to find a more creative, and legal, outlet for their emotions in the future." That condescending suggestion ignores the shrinking public sphere and the fact that people get arrested for wearing anti-war t-shirts at the mall, that Wal-Mart has people arrested for soliciting signatures in the parking lot or protesting at stockholders meetings, that the UA administration tries to limit religious speakers on campus, that the UA threatened legal action against a joker who designed a t-shirt poking fun at Houston Nutt, that high school students now have almost no freedom of speech on or off campus, and that not everyone who has something worth saying can afford the ad rates in the Times.
It is significant that the editorial hinged on the fact that "Donald W. Reynolds Razorback Stadium,
People way smarter than me have argued that the contemporary graffiti subculture is a system of action that renegotiates the social significance of public space in
Even though I can't fully appreciate it, graffiti can perform a valuable symbolic resistance and defend a cultural space by introducing and bringing attention to alternative voices in our community. Whose community? It suggests that our city is everyone's territory, not just the rich and famous