Santa Cruz judge to decide value of defaced Black Lives Matter painting

Santa Cruz Sentinel ^ | July 23, 2022 | Jessica York

[NWFree]

I’d guess about $1.29 in paint 🤪

[Rummyfan]

The “painting” is worth about as much as what I flushed down the toilet a couple of hours ago.

Even that may be overvaluing it.

[Scrambler Bob]

That paint makes the road surface more slick.

It is more dangerous than asphalt.

I am not surprised that those pickup trucks lost traction on that slippery surface.

They should be compensated for loss of tire rubber, and for fear induced by lack of safety on the slick street.

[Muhammy]

F’N S H E E IT STAIN

[MHGinTN]

No, as a sign of our times it should read BLM except for alive, sensing black babies in wombs.

[Lurkinanloomin]

$0.00

[rovenstinez]

I would think it could fetch about 3 billion dollars.

[piytar]

California judge? I’m guessing the judge will set the value at $1,000,000,000,000. But I could be wrong. Maybe more.

[Karliner]

Ahh the good old days where we painted all sort of Go Back to the Valley stuff and worse. No one cared. BLM? Who allowed that in the first place?

[Fresh Wind]

The presence of any BLM “painting” should serve as a stern warning to stay as far away from that neighborhood as possible.

[FlingWingFlyer]

When is the idiot going to determine the value of the AMERICAN monuments and memorials destroyed by the BLM bass turds?

[ViLaLuz]

What about all the historical statues the domestic terrorists destroyed?

[gunsequalfreedom]

[Osage Orange]

IS it an auction?

[DouglasKC]

I don’t understand how legally any company or person can’t paint whatever they want on a public street since this is allowed and protected.

[Reno89519]

The cost of the BLM terrorist painting as in the cost to remove it?

[Reno89519]

Yes, I guess if the BLM terrorist painting is allowed 1st amendment art, so is the subsequent protest painting.

[T.B. Yoits]

The defacing of the first defacing, could also be considered a political artistic response to the initial defacement. The second artist was simply moved to artistically respond to the first artists’ statement.

Exactly.

Judge: "It's art."

Second artist: "So is what I did."