preview

Graffiti Is A Beautiful Crime Linda Ngo Summary

Decent Essays

A Rhetorical Reading Response: “Graffiti is a Beautiful 'Crime'” Linda Ngo, author of the opinion piece “Graffiti is a Beautiful 'Crime'” (2017), argues that graffiti should be legalized on grounds that it is an artistic expression of free speech. Ngo uses many comparisons between graffiti, which she claims is harmless, to many legal activities that cause people harm. Her purpose in writing this paper is to establish a legal form of graffiti to protect graffiti artists from legal action. Ngo's target audience for this paper is peers who may have different views on graffiti and its purpose. This paper contained many flawed arguments that frustrated me. The question “How could beautiful quotes and images destroy boring plain walls?” (Ngo 198) has a simple …show more content…

If the person wants the graffiti on their building, it is not vandalism and is already legal. Ngo also compares alcohol and tobacco use to graffiti. This is a weak argument because a person chooses to consume the substances and suffer their own personal consequences. A graffiti artist chooses another person's property and inflicts damage to it. Freedom of speech is a protected right we have as Americans, but it does not and should not extend to protect vandalism. Linda Ngo creates her arguments primarily from two methods. Her first two arguments are made in the form of syllogism. For example, Ngo states “Freedom of speech and expression is a natural right that we assimilated when we were born” (196), and “This right gives people the opportunity to speak their mind whether it’s directly using your mouth or using indirect methods through poetry, music, and visual arts” (196). Since graffiti would be a visual art, the argument is; if freedom of speech legally protects art, and graffiti is art, then graffiti should be legally protected. Another example of this is when she defines vandalism as “Action involving deliberate destruction of or damage to

Get Access