No, vandalism requires actual physical damage of some sort.
The article is essentially the legal reasoning from the Nevada Court of Appeal - some fairly experienced legal minds examining the situation (in this case, via an appeal).
They're fairly clear in how they examine the situation and that no accepted definition of trespass applies and suggest some recourse to 'victims' who could, rather than incur huge legal fees, simply set their own competing projector to overcome the undesired images. An example of appeal judges being fairly pragmatic and laying a foundation for lawyers handling future cases to suggest better resolutions than expensive litigation - if only they'd read appeal court decisions /and remember them/.
However, they do also suggest there is a case to consider the situation a nuisance (s.4) and take action that way.
Given they make no mention of vandalism as an avenue, it seems quite evident the experienced legal experts suggest the situation is one of nuisance and should be handled as that if resorting to law.
Why should anyone on HN argue with a qualified legal opinion by suggesting alternative legal strategies?
I agree with your characterization of vandalism, but to
> Why should anyone on HN argue with a qualified legal opinion by suggesting alternative legal strategies?
there are a long list of reasons why we might want to:
- some of us have qualified legal opinions of our own
- it's a discussion site
- the victims here employed a poor legal strategy, as nuisance claims were obviously more likely to succeed than trespass claims, so it isn't like there wasn't room for improvement upon the actual legal strategy
- because even lay-people may be right on legal matters (though they rarely tend to be)
I'm sure there are many, many more reasons why, but off the top of my head, those will do. The idea that we shouldn't have free reign to discuss things we don't have expert knowledge of would, if put in action, eliminate the very purpose of forums like HN.
Because they disagree with that legal opinion? I argue against the Citizens United decision constantly and that decision came down from arguably the most knowledgeable and important legal minds of today.
That still results in a physical change to the building, even if it is only temporary (or not, if the building material is unusually porous).
The test that I remember seeing applied in the past concerns "intention distruction or defacement". As I understand it, alterations (graffiti, breaking a window, removing ornamentation, etc.) that alters the physical object or space can apply.
You're using the word in a different sense than the person you're responding to. They're talking about the standard for charging someone for a criminal act.
The article is essentially the legal reasoning from the Nevada Court of Appeal - some fairly experienced legal minds examining the situation (in this case, via an appeal).
They're fairly clear in how they examine the situation and that no accepted definition of trespass applies and suggest some recourse to 'victims' who could, rather than incur huge legal fees, simply set their own competing projector to overcome the undesired images. An example of appeal judges being fairly pragmatic and laying a foundation for lawyers handling future cases to suggest better resolutions than expensive litigation - if only they'd read appeal court decisions /and remember them/.
However, they do also suggest there is a case to consider the situation a nuisance (s.4) and take action that way.
Given they make no mention of vandalism as an avenue, it seems quite evident the experienced legal experts suggest the situation is one of nuisance and should be handled as that if resorting to law.
Why should anyone on HN argue with a qualified legal opinion by suggesting alternative legal strategies?