2016 Intra-IU

Topic and Resolution

Resolved: Legal restrictions on graffiti should be substantially reduced. 

The debate about graffiti and its place and role in communities is one that is ripe for debate. The debate is fundamentally a human one, an issue that has existed as far back as ancient civilization, perhaps even the wall art found in caves around the world. 

In contemporary society, we are confronted with questions on whether graffiti is an artform that should be valued as beautiful expression. Graffiti labelled as vandilism raises questions about the artform as a public menace that devalues properties as symbolic represenations of "broken windows" and urban disorder . Should we value graffiti as a political and subversive form of expression that should be protected by free speech? Has the value of protecting personal property reduced available artistic public spaces for non-verbal political artwork? Should graffiti be decriminalized? 

Issues to think about:

Should graffiti be protected under the 1st amendment? 
Should zoning restrictions be reduced to allow businesses and property owners the right to use graffiti? 
Do graffiti artists have a right to the intellectual property of their work?
Is graffiti a nuisance, destructive or a form of political engagement? 
Should the external walls of our world be considered public or private?
Should graffiti be criminalized, decriminalized, legalized?