Graffiti is speech.
More? Okay. Obviously some graffiti (though not all) is property destruction as well as being speech, but even then it's a hybrid act, and should be understood that way when you're trying to draw moral and ethical conclusions about it.
Also, a lot of laws and regulations against graffiti draw no distinctions between destructive and non-destructive graffiti, or intentionally (particularly in their enforcement) intentionally exaggerate the destructiveness of the act.
Chalking is, for instance, obviously benign. When kids do it, or nonpolitical artists, we understand that. When activists do it, and are punished for it, it's presumptively an attempt to squelch speech because of its content, which is a civil-liberties no-no.
The distinction between violence and property damage is essential to how I think about the ethics of "unlawful" protest, as is the distinction between actual property damage and the property-damage playacting by cops and other officials.
People in power can make all sorts of benign stuff illegal, and treat identical acts as illegal or illegal as suits their whim. So "Is it illegal?" isn't a particularly useful question to ask when deciding whether to condemn an activist tactic.
(It's often useful when assessing the risks involved in adopting or encouraging the adoption of a tactic, particularly by at-risk activists, and it's sometimes useful in predicting reactions to the tactic, but it's (IMO) morally pretty much neutral absent such considerations.)
And no, since this seems to come up every time, I don't regard a willingness to offer oneself up for prosecution to be an intentional component of ethical lawbreaking-as-activism.
Civil disobedience is a perfectly cromulent tactic in certain circumstances, and I respect that some folks regard it as an ethical obligation for themselves, but it seems patently obvious to me that breaking bad laws and getting away with it isn't per se immoral.
(And of course some people with power are way bigger dipshits than I give them credit for.)
Just noted that I said "intentional" a couple of tweets up where I meant "essential." Oops.
