Free Speech: Use It or Lose It (or.. use what little you have left)

[Guest guest]

r

Sat, 2 Jul 2005 03:52:02 -0400

FREEWAYBLOGGER.com - Free Speech: Use It or Lose It (or..use

what little you have left)

 

 

 

Address:http://www.freewayblogger.com/index.htm

 

Free Speech: Use It or Lose It (or use what little you have left)

 

 

http://www.somethingcool.ca/backissues/032805/secondary105.htm

 

Issue 105 - March 28, 2005

Secondary Feature

 

Imagine driving down the Trans-Canada Highway and seeing a sign that

read " Paul Martin is a Killer. " How would you react to it and how long

would it stay up? Would such an expression be deemed illegal and

hateful by the government and how many people would be convinced of

the sign's truth?

 

While there are no reports that such a sign exists (yet), other, less

innocuous signs are starting to pop up on highways and billboards all

across Canada. For Canadians, it's a bit of an anomaly, a strange

enigma yet to be explained, but in the United States, " freeway

blogging " as it is known, is commonplace. Since 9/11 and the beginning

of the War in Iraq, freeway blogging has exploded down south. It has

become such that it is almost a rarity to not see a sign of some kind

hanging above a freeway overpass near a major city. And, like most

trends, it is only a matter of time before this form of expression

takes hold here in Canada.

 

To better understand this phenomenon, we emailed the man behind

Freewayblogger.com, a website that encourages others to join the

movement and even teaches the basics. The respondent to our

inquisitive email – Scarlet P. – was happy to explain his work and why

he does it. The following is the email interview conducted over the

course of a couple of days, but be warned – you may never look at the

freeway the same way again.

 

An Interview with a Freeway Blogger

 

SCN: Scarlet, for those that are unaware (like me, for example), what

is a " guerilla artist " , as they are called on your website?

 

Probably different things to different folks, but I consider it being

any sort of artist working outside the usual gallery venue - art in

the streets, or commons - obvious political overtones there as well...

certainly not art for profit.

 

What is your motivation behind doing all this and what can you tell us

about yourself?

 

I'm 43 years old, male and spent most of my adult life seeking out fun

and adventure: lots of traveling and as little work as possible. In

the 80's I worked as a freelance journalist and spent a lot of time in

Central America, where I saw firsthand that, simply, my government was

lying to me. Traveling in the third world also made me realize

precisely how fortunate I was, economically speaking, just having a

few thousand bucks in the bank.

 

At a certain point I felt like I'd done enough in terms of simply

adventuring for the sake of it and wanted to do something more -

something that actually helped people. So I thought to myself, given

the resources I have, what's the most useful thing I can do in terms

of alleviating human suffering? The answer to the question " What's the

most useful thing I can do to alleviate human misery changed however

from " clothing the poor " to " whatever it takes to get George Bush out

of office. " And that's when freewayblogging began.

 

There have always been people putting signs on the freeway, but either

they're hand scrawled and all but unreadable, or they're done with bed

sheets, which billow, are difficult to put up and create something of

a spectacle and thus come down fairly quickly. Using cardboard allows

me to make fifteen signs with the effort others might put into one.

Here in California I can hit fifteen different freeways without too

much driving (at least in the LA and SF areas) and simply reach a lot

more people. Everyone should do this.

 

On your site, you say that you do not have a voice to be heard - this

is a likely refrain from other freeway bloggers. What do you mean by

that, for those that think America epitomizes freedom of expression?

 

The problem is not so much with America, which is and hopefully will

remain a bastion of free expression... the problem is with technology

and the media. Having a voice capable of reaching a handful of people

doesn't do much good when you're up against the Limbaughs, Hannitys,

Coulters and O'Reillys of this world, who collectively garner

audiences of tens of millions, possibly more. The right to full and

unfettered free speech, by my interpretation, means I can reach out to

as many people as possible. I probably wouldn't be working so hard to

exercise it though if it weren't for the incessant hate-spew coming

from these so-called " pundits " . Although I'd known about hate radio, I

didn't start actually listening to it until after Sept. 11th, when

like most of us I became hungry for any political input. When I

finally started listening to these shows I thought " oh my god... I

can't believe this is what's being spewed out to so many people... " It

really took me by surprise. I call such shows " Radio Rwanda " , since

Radio was the primary device used by the Hutus to tell their brethren

to exterminate the Tutsis.

 

The Internet is perhaps the ultimate forum for free expression - why

bother with freeway blogging and all the work that goes into it?

 

It's one thing to have a website, quite another to draw traffic

towards it. The " work " of freeway blogging is really a pleasure, and

utilizes all sorts of various arts and sciences: rhetoric, painting,

demographics, engineering, fence-climbing (sometimes) stealth

(always)... all sorts of things... A simple " The War is a Lie. " blog

takes me about seven minutes to trace and paint, six seconds to hang.

It can be seen by ten thousand motorists in an hour, and depending on

how effectively it's placed, it can stay up for days. Another thing is

the demographics: you can put all sorts of things on a website, but

the political Internet is divided into ghettos of the left and the

right: lefties go to lefty sites and righties to the right. When you

put something on the freeway, you get everybody.

 

Who is the typical freeway blogger and is there even such a thing?

 

The simple answer is " someone who's pissed-off about something and

wants others to know it... " but that's not really it. At the risk of

rhapsodizing, the typical freeway-blogger is someone who, despite all

evidence to the contrary, still believes they can change the world.

That's the difference between activists and the great many who are

like-minded, but don't actually DO anything: the activist still

believes it's possible for their actions to have an actual effect, and

hopefully a snowballing effect on others. Not a certainty, mind you,

or even a likelihood... but a possibility of changing the world, for

the better, nevertheless.

 

Can it really have an effect on those that are being blogged against

and is there an example of this?

 

I've gotten a few letters from people who've seen the signs, then

found the website and told me that the signs did make them think...

not necessarily change their minds about anything, but did make them

consider things they otherwise wouldn't. One thing is for certain

though, signs on the freeway indicate that things are not altogether

normal. We are, I'm told " a nation at war " , well, if that's the case,

then it's unseemly that things should proceed as normal.

 

I showed a friend your website and he said freeway bloggers are just

" disgruntled losers. " What do you say to him and like-minded critics?

 

Post-election, the " losers " moniker could fit... but rather to be a

disgruntled loser than the alternative - a complacent one. I had a

conversation with a right-winger about the war and the Bush

administration (not discussing my work) and I put it this way: " Let's

say the President took us to war under false pretenses, lied about the

costs, plunged the nation into debt while shoveling billions to his

friends, making enemies of practically all our allies and killing

thousands of people, etc. etc. " And then I said " And the President's

name was Clinton. How would you feel? " Immediately he understood how I

felt. I could practically see the sense of understanding come across

him physically.

 

You say that part of the reason you do this stems from patriotism, but

there are those that would say by not supporting your government and

your President, you are actually the enemy. What is your response?

 

Balderdash. There's all sorts of countries, both historically and in

the present day where that might be the case, but America ain't one of

them. I'd understand the argument if this were North Korea, but it's

not, yet. If it wasn't for political dissent against the government,

there wouldn't BE an America, we'd still be living under the British

Crown. I think people forget that...

 

You also say that freeway blogging is fun. Elaborate on this and what

are some of the rewards besides having your messages read by a lot of

other people?

 

I could go on about this part forever. It's all about being able to

get your message out to as many people as possible. To do this

combines so many different elements, but the essentials are

readability and duration. Duration hinges on a sign's Size, Content

and Placement, though not necessarily in that order. The larger a sign

is, the quicker it'll come down - the more innocuous, or less partisan

a sign's content is, the longer it'll stay up, the more difficult to

reach, again, the longer it'll stay. There are so many various

permutations on this I don't really know where to start. For example,

I put a huge banner that read " FREE KURDISTAN " directly over a large

Interstate in southern California: it was up for four days. Easy as

hell to get to, but over half a million people went by, including

plenty of Highway patrolmen and road workers - nobody touched it. A

large " Bush Lied " in the same spot might've lasted 15 or 20 minutes. A

small (but readable) " Bush Lied " on the other hand would probably last

two or three hours, or more. Small signs are much more effective, in

my opinion, than larger, more spectacular ones simply because they

stay up longer. The message is conveyed just as well, but because it's

less in-your-face, people who disagree aren't as willing to take the

effort, no matter how slight, to take it down.

 

Other aspects are placement-oriented - since freeways are courseways,

you can place something fifty feet from the freeway that would

nevertheless take ten or twenty miles of driving to reach: this is

particularly true on divided highways using signs facing northbound

(for example) traffic but mounted on the southbound side. Such signs

can be seen by EVERYONE going in one way and be utterly invisible to

those going the other. Next time you go driving, take a look at

everything you can see, and then consider which things you can see

which would be most difficult to reach from your vantage point. It's

really a fun and intellectually challenging pursuit, and changes the

whole experience of driving, even on a road you've driven hundreds of

times... Like I said, I can go on and on about this...

 

The " Fun With Hate Radio " section on your site is very moving and

compelling. Why do you think so many people seem to want to stymie the

debates on issues like those and how frustrating is it to be an

American with a strong opinion right now?

 

I don't know what the motivation of the corporate right is beyond

money, and even that I don't really understand. Theoretically, the

point of all commercial radio is to sell ad space, but it really seems

there's a crueler, more insidious ideology at play. It's very easy to

sell people on the notion that they are by virtue of their nationality

and/or race/religion etc. better than everyone else, and that seems to

be a really constant in right wing radio. " The liberals are this...

the liberals want to do that... can you believe what the liberals want

to... etc. etc. " Maybe there's just a constant need to put others

down, and since you can't do it to blacks and gays openly anymore,

liberals are still fair game. I think the American people are

basically good, (though no better than Canadians, Venezuelans,

Uruguayans etc.) nevertheless, the notion that people aren't

inherently better than others by virtue of their citizenship, religion

etc. seems to be difficult for many people to grasp - even blasphemous

in some circles...

 

As I mentioned, some of these signs are starting to pop up here in

Canada now - what advice do you have for us Canadians in all of this

and what are your opinions of our own situation?

 

This'll be the question where I fail you I'm afraid. I don't know

quite what your laws are, so I can't advise you on that front. What I

do breaks several laws, minor ones, here - but I do it in defense of a

greater one - the first amendment right to free expression, which is

something that really does need defending. My opinion of your

situation is that, so far as I can tell - you're doing everything

right: you're damn lucky to be living in a country that's got so many

of it's priorities geared towards (and I'm obviously simplifying here)

life instead of death. What you put into healthcare we put into the

military. If signs start to pop up, read them. Consider painting them

yourself. cardboard, paint and something to say you feel needs saying

- that's all it takes.

 

May I take some pictures from the site for use with this interview?

 

Naturally you can use anything you like from the site... feel free to

write back with more questions. I put up about forty signs today and

am exhausted... over a million people read them and whether they liked

it or not, they had to think about what I had to say, which, I

believe, is better than not having to.

 

Peace,

 

Scarlet P.,

the freewayblogger

 

Check out Scarlet's other amazing project here:

http://www.taketothehills.org

 

Fred Johns