I gather (just my impression, not sure) that the rules for accounting for that money is less stringent than other things, like campaign funds. They have said that there is money remaining and that it will be given to charity. But there’s no evidence it has been or even how much remains.
So awesome.
ohhhhhhhh shut the front door
Wow they’re saying the EPA building is right across the street.
I can confirm it is. It takes up the whole block across the street from there.
Hahaha eat shit you asslords
Possibly relevant in the near future:
Is projecting a message onto the wall of a building a trespass? A nuisance?
Logically, I think it ought to be considered “vandalism” albeit non-permanent. Emotionally, I think the person that did this should be congratulated.
Vandalism? I’m not sure how you’re getting there. I’m pretty sure vandalism requires destruction of property.
Thinking its equivalent to spray painting a message. Again, albeit not permanent. An interesting case to be sure.
Trespassing seems more relevant than vandalism. Vandalism does damage, whereas trespassing is encroachment on private property, which you could at least argue the projection represents. But it would depend how a given locality’s law happens to be written, of course.
You could argue that it’s doing damage.
Hell, you could make that argument pretty easily when it comes to a business.
I don’t think it’s that simple.
Ordinary light doesn’t damage property. That’s why we can’t sue people for shining a flashlight on our house. The words might damage the owner’s reputation, but that’s not vandalism, that’s potential defamation. Or not, if the words are true.
It’s also not trespassing. Trespassing is encroachment upon someone’s property, but encroachment implies something substantial. On that basis, courts have already ruled that a bad odor wafting onto your property is not trespassing. The molecules that constitute bad odor are far more massive than photons.
Shining a message onto a building is not much different than holding up a sign in front of that building. In general, holding up a sign is not illegal.
This is the most likely angle of attack legally, though since it’s done “to” property vandalism could also be used. Likely come down to local statutes.
@miramon might be right that trespassing is the better angle. The building is private property. So this would be sort of like the distinction between standing in front of a building on a public sidewalk with a protest sign vs putting the sign on the building itself.
Interesting discussion.
If that ends up being trespassing then I suddenly see a business opportunity brewing: holographic protest sign generators. Have the protest without all the fuss and muss of having to physically stand on the street!
You wait until VR protests in Google Earth locations become a thing. The ultimate in armchair protesting!
Imagine if someone opened a rival candle-making shop in the neighborhood where you have a candle-making shop, and then at night started projecting “THESE CANDLES ARE MADE FROM MELTED WHITE BABIES” on your storefront. I would imagine that you could make a case that this was damaging.
That being said, hot damn, that is amazeballs. If Red Don is going to baldly use the country for personal gain, then vigilante justice is approved.