Prohibiting his lawyer from mentioning First Amendment rights is ridiculous! What good are the foundations of our society, if they are not upheld in a court of law.

This really is my only gripe. I can actually understand the reason why it would be considered vandalism, but the purpose of the case I think is to oppress the message he was sending (he pissed off the bank obviously...that's where I'm happy). This is why we have rights to protests, even though it is chalk, if everyone did it, it still is graffiti.