Scott is now prohibited from using exclamation points for the rest of 2007 and quite possible the first quarter of 2008.

It's a hard lesson.

Amy, on the other hand, seems to have put one or two too few in the post title.

Jesus!!! That was hard to read!!!! The exclamations made it 100% non threatening!!!! BTW!!!!

Even if Randy has his way and makes it illegal to place tape on the sidewalk the notion of Duty to Retreat would still not work in your favor if you were to force someone to step off their tape. Duty to Retreat.

Even a cop that is enforcing such a law would be hard pressed to justify the use of force -- given the clear PR downside.

Is a jaywalker fair game? -- for disproportionate response by any driver. Or a rebellious bike rider?

The public acceptance of a duty to retreat can only work when folks don't take advantage of it or make a mockery of it.

Some rebelliousness only tests the level of public tolerance for aberrant behavior. Randy's law would just embolden aimless rebels to take matters into their own righteous hands -- necessitating the matching abandonment of any duty to retreat.

I would suggest that any law that bans taping also makes it unlawful for non-authorized persons to remove the unlawfully placed tape of others. In the interest of avoiding conflict, of course. The public harm, the risk of aggressive behavior, associated with anti-taping is higher than taping itself. Or stated another way, in the absence of an anti-tape mob there would be no need to pass a law to restrain an anti-tape mob.

==
I am just disappointed that it was not The O that pulled such a stunt (which they would not do, for good reason). I already view them as just another PAC, notwithstanding a statutory exemption, subject to transparency of their contributions and expenditures. I could then demand that they have to cover the public costs for providing a police presence for their political event/stunt.

Was the stunt consistent with the exemption from the campaign finance transparency laws accorded to the press? It would be hard to call the stunt an "editorial." My target is the differential treatment among classes of speakers; not to heighten restraint but to reduce it -- for clearly non-violent expression (and not to reward hecklers). (How about Portland's own lobbying ordinance?)

The burden for addressing the issue of the elevation of the risk of violence here rests with the Mayor and the police.

Thanks for earning your name, Nag!

I still have no idea what you're talking about.

Nag? Dude?

Can you please relate how "stand-your-ground" and "duty-to-retreat" laws relate to tape removal?

I am a gun nut and a strong advocate of concealed carry, and have read a LOT of legal stuff on both those laws, but I fail to see the connection to taping and tape removal.

Suppose that the city already had a law that prohibited the taping. And that you had a one page flier that summarized it in BOLD TYPE, perhaps even with a city letterhead. Now . . . as you approach a tapped off area with folks actually sitting in their chairs or sleeping bags . . . would you insist that because of the LAW that you have a superior right to remove the tape notwithstanding someone's presence and objection?

If Randy gets his way and you make your pre-parade clean-up thing an annual ritual (sort of a free speech flag burning sort of taunting so as to verify that the right is still valid) that it is you that is the agitator. I would surely expect that notwithstanding any ban on taping that folks will consider it fully within their first amendment rights to tape to object to Randy's LAW, and they would be right. No less so than your's to remove clearly unattended/unguarded tape.

If you want to harass (or even politely ask) someone to step aside so you can remove their tape this would be precisely the worst case scenario that is feared from the average self respecting Joe from the community in a completely unregulated activity. It would be foolhardy to presume that folks are meek and would not instantly grab your flier and rip it up as they utter some unequivocal words then get their nose within 6 inches of yours. Civility is sometimes a learned behavior.

So . . if you parrot Randy's words that IT IS THE LAW (after passage of his law) does this not make us MORE LIKE A POLICE STATE and you more like a common thug? I'd rather have Randy standing their demanding that I remove tape. That way I could cuss out the appropriate party. It seems that he understands how to use compulsory powers, even if he lacks self-restraint. Do we really need armed police running around pulling up tape instead? I sure as hell would not want to give you a special license to do it, with or without armed escort.

I'd suggest red while and blue tape arranged as an American Flag. Certainly it could be more artistic. Maybe even embrace it just as with sand art competition that gets washed away with the incoming tide. At least then it could ADD TO THE WHOLE COMMUNITY FEELING or even give a reason for folks to TAPE EARLIER and for more folks to visit and chat it up all along the route AND SPEND MORE MONEY locally. I have seen pictures of some fantastic 3D chalk art.

There must surely be something better than stopping folks from self expression.

"Now . . . as you approach a tapped off area with folks actually sitting in their chairs or sleeping bags . . . would you insist that because of the LAW that you have a superior right to remove the tape notwithstanding someone's presence and objection?"

As I witnessed at the TapeFest 2007, this wasn't the case in the least.

When approaching a group that was present, they were asked which spots were theirs and then *thanked* for coming down and camping. Everything around them was removed but they were thanked.

Now, I personally want to see more of what we saw as we were leaving: folks were coming down in droves and camping out. I bet there were some wonderful parties that night, as folks were able to find spots that weren't taped off. I think that the kids in those minivans dropping off the tents will remember that a lot longer than the kids of those parents who taped off a spot then show up 10 mins before the parade with their young in tow.

Still not quite sure how this relates to shooting people, nag...but at least I answered your question.

You have mis identified the problem. Tape per se is not THE PROBLEM. It is the risk of violence that might accompany lack of recognition that it is not enforceable. It is JUST A TRASH ISSUE, you could argue.

That one in particular, and many many more, has been to the US Supreme Court and recognized as a rouse to prohibit distribution of hand bills that recipients would just toss on the ground causing TRASH. Would you feign ignorance of the link there too?

How relevant is the Rose Festival that duct tape makes headlines for a week?
I found something quite enjoyable to do-listening to high school seniors present their projects for evaluation.
Find something worthwhile to do.

"It is the risk of violence that might accompany lack of recognition that it is not enforceable. "

Risk of violence? Stand-your-ground? Duty to Retreat?

Nag: Get out of the wild west, and come back to reality. No one is gonna get shot.

Nor *were* they shot. Sure there were some harsh words, but ultimately, the point was made. On both sides.

"Would you feign ignorance of the link there too?"

Uhhh...I think I know where you are going with this: increased rules and regulations alter what we consider to be free speech, and banning taping up the sidewalks to "preserve" a spot to watch a parade is nothing more than the camel's nose under the tent...

So, in answer to your question: I am not feigning ignorance. I am genuinely dismissive.

I find your idea to be flat out silly. Not Sienfeld silly, mind you. More like Bozo the clown silly. Not Mad-Lib silly, more like whoopee cushion silly.

I am trying to NOT laugh as I write this. I am sure you are genuine in your concern for the safety of folks involved. I am trying...desperately...to project good intentions upon your words, but all I can see is Bozo bending down in big red shoes, handing a flower to a little girl.

In front of a parade.

You project quite effectively.

I will choose corny any day over being forced to repel violence.

Jesse James had a vigorous publicist for his antics. The Wild West offers poignant lessons, and this one is not about the introduction of barbed wire.

Okay. New issue. I'm thinking about slaughtering a cow.

Someone else's cow, and only for sport and not to eat.

So . . . you failed to goad anyone into abandoning their self-restraint. Does that repudiate the very premise upon which Randy's proposed law is based, prevention of violence?

Your position is as vacuous as that of the folks that want to ban flag burning so that they have a hint of public backing as expressed in the law to give them license to jump in to halt the perceived offense, without any legal consequence. For what end?

Pretend that you were in a position of leadership and that folks looked to you for words of moderation to calm the rabble.

For contrast I suggest you find some video clips of Jack McGowen, the guy who is responsible for SOLV, and study his remarkable gift for communication and instilling confidence. He would not misconstrue a goading stunt as a good deed.

Face it, you are not cut from the same cloth.

Has anyone ever told you that you talk funny?

You know, I get all the way down here to make some smart ass comment about something and then realize everything has gotten off point. All I can remember is something about exclamation points.... maybe using some sort of vulgarity. Damn you all. Although I do remember something about killing a cow. Sounds like fun... The Portland Mercury Civil Cleanup Crew Annual Cow Hunt.

First prize could be an old growth tree wraped in baby seal pelts!

"So . . . you failed to goad anyone into abandoning their self-restraint."

You are talking about Matt? Goad? Him?

i am supremely amused by you, nag. You obviously haven't met the Limey Bastard (tm). He is about as intimidating as a gerbera daisy in the middle of a field of wildflowers. I shudder to imagine Matt angry. He might *cuss*. A lot. Heavens no!

Thanks for consistently dishing up a big ol' steaming pile of amusement, nag. Keep up the good work, nag!

So the violence that is so great a concern as to require a ban on taping is really just a pillow fight?

It might not even be enough fun to go add chalk art to the sidewalk around city hall Wednesday morning.

(There was a reason why I said that I would prefer to have Randy standing in front of me insisting that I remove tape -- more fun.)

These comments tickle me. I love reading what all the cool people write and think, because I so want to be like all of you. Hipsters, be thankful you live in a great city that puts up with your dorkiness and please stop acting like the brats that you are.