The Further Adventures of that Monolith Stolen in Utah (fox13now.com) 57
A Utah newstation interviewed the men claiming responsibility for removing the original monolith in Utah, who reveal where, why, and how they took it:
Homer Manson described how they brought tools, but in the end they were able to simply push the monolith over and it fell on the ground... "We actually passed another crew on the way out, they were going in to destroy it," Any Lewis recounted...
"That's exactly what we didn't want to happen, is somebody of that mentality to get a hold of it and completely lose the message behind it," Sylvan Christensen relayed.
The monolith was in pieces, but the three men talked about how they rebuilt it. They described how it took a few weeks between consulting with lawyers and speaking with the BLM [America's federal-lands administrating Bureau of Land Management], to bring the monument back to the agency. Lewis posted a video on his Instagram, showing the monolith standing tall in a yard. Just this last Friday [the 18th], they said they drove the monument on a trailer with a tarp to conceal it to deliver it to the BLM.
Lewis explained that they donated it back to the BLM in good faith, to help with the investigation. It's their understanding, they indicated, that the monolith will end up on display again. "That's kind of the discussion," Christensen said. "It's ultimately up to the BLM as to where they put it, but that was kind of the gentleman's agreement is that it would get put at Red Butte Garden." If and when this international monolith of mystery ends up back in the public eye — perhaps, according to the guys, at Red Butte Garden in Salt Lake City — they explained how they want it to spark discussion about art on public lands, and responsible land use. Lewis said he wants to use this as a "togetherness moment," where people can come together to make a proposal to the BLM and have a public decision on if there should be a place where people can place art on public lands, and figure out if that's a proper use of art space. He said it would be nice to use the Utah Monolith to present this as a positive story, and show people how to display this art...
The BLM said it is still investigating the illegal installation along with the San Juan County Sheriff's Office.
The BLM "doesn't want to set a precedent that people can just go out onto public lands and take things away," according to a report from Outside magazine.
But Sylvan Christensen points out to the magazine that "We didn't destroy the art. We kind of changed its direction and made it a bigger thing that surrounds environmental awareness and ethical land recreation."
"That's exactly what we didn't want to happen, is somebody of that mentality to get a hold of it and completely lose the message behind it," Sylvan Christensen relayed.
The monolith was in pieces, but the three men talked about how they rebuilt it. They described how it took a few weeks between consulting with lawyers and speaking with the BLM [America's federal-lands administrating Bureau of Land Management], to bring the monument back to the agency. Lewis posted a video on his Instagram, showing the monolith standing tall in a yard. Just this last Friday [the 18th], they said they drove the monument on a trailer with a tarp to conceal it to deliver it to the BLM.
Lewis explained that they donated it back to the BLM in good faith, to help with the investigation. It's their understanding, they indicated, that the monolith will end up on display again. "That's kind of the discussion," Christensen said. "It's ultimately up to the BLM as to where they put it, but that was kind of the gentleman's agreement is that it would get put at Red Butte Garden." If and when this international monolith of mystery ends up back in the public eye — perhaps, according to the guys, at Red Butte Garden in Salt Lake City — they explained how they want it to spark discussion about art on public lands, and responsible land use. Lewis said he wants to use this as a "togetherness moment," where people can come together to make a proposal to the BLM and have a public decision on if there should be a place where people can place art on public lands, and figure out if that's a proper use of art space. He said it would be nice to use the Utah Monolith to present this as a positive story, and show people how to display this art...
The BLM said it is still investigating the illegal installation along with the San Juan County Sheriff's Office.
The BLM "doesn't want to set a precedent that people can just go out onto public lands and take things away," according to a report from Outside magazine.
But Sylvan Christensen points out to the magazine that "We didn't destroy the art. We kind of changed its direction and made it a bigger thing that surrounds environmental awareness and ethical land recreation."
"We didn't destroy the art" (Score:2, Insightful)
ah come on it wasn't art! It was a prank and not worthy of the classification of art. It was eco vandalism if anything.
Re: (Score:2)
The boundary line between "art" and "prank" is fuzzy. But since this is the monolith that started the whole craze, it can be viewed as an historical artifact.
Hopefully a deal can be worked out such that it can be put into a public museum for all to see.
Re: (Score:2)
craze
C'mon man... craze? Meme... barely.
Re:"We didn't destroy the art" (Score:5, Interesting)
Somebody piles some rocks 10000 years ago and now it's profound and / or sacred. Some kid tags a cave wall back then and now it's art. I have a tough time reconciling the perspectives here. It's funny that evangelicals and environmentalists seem to both agree that modern humans are special and don't belong on Earth.
Re: (Score:1)
It depends on whether the politicians at the top of your faction gain more power by savaging it as an affront or by praying about it's sacred nature.
You have no idea what to think until they inform you of this week's memetic talking points buttressing their power grab attempts.
Re: (Score:2)
Bureau of Land Management. It manages public lands. That means the land belongs to the American people collectively. There are rules about how that land is managed, and you may not like them, but they are lawful and intended for the greatest good.
Don't get me wrong. I am a moderate, tending toward conservative libertarianism, but rules is rules. I think modern humans are no better or worse than anyone who ever existed anywhere and anywhen. But neither you nor I have any right to arbitrarily break the lawfu
Re: (Score:3)
I'm totally with your point, and agree on several areas. People saying it was a bad thing are just being too strict.
But I will say the one thing you have to take into account when it comes to environmentalists is the extreme loss of habitat for wildlife and the fact that humans are more populous by many times over than other large animals. It is certainly past time to protect wild areas.
Now this monolith stuff, I personally thought it was great. I don't see it killing any critters, unless I missed something
Re: (Score:2)
Art is whatever you can get away with. -- Marshall McLuhan
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Of course it's art. It's a work of creativity, and by its power to spawn discourse it has proven its relevance.
Whether it's worthy art is a whole other question. Cutting a hole in a rock to install it seems petty, albeit overall irrelevant. If zillions of people did it, it would be a problem, but I have a hard time getting upset about it being done once.
Was it truly stolen? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Can someone "steal" litter
There are at least 3 parties involved. Those that discarded the litter, those that own the land the litter is on, and everyone else.
Are you suggesting that all 3 of these parties has a right to go around gathering any shit that happens to be on the ground?
Things (Score:3)
Put it this way, if someone builds something on *your* property, it becomes yours. This is, to the point, that if it is not supposed to be there legally, as in it's an illegal structure, it's *your* responsibility to remove it.
So, yeah, it's a weird situation. Technically the *government* owned the monolith, as it was built on public land. The people who took it, technically, stole it from the government. The government may or may not care.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
A foundation is irrelevant. If you build a structure with a foundation illegally, it can and still likely will be removed even if it meets code, unless you retroactively permit it.
Re: (Score:1)
If you forget your backpack, is it considered "litter" for the taking? Unknown large objects should be left alone until you know their back story. Report it to the authorities if you have concern. Otherwise, hands off.
Re:Was it truly stolen? (Score:5, Insightful)
If you forget your backpack, is it considered "litter" for the taking?
I suspect you are dealing with people who think "finders keepers" is law, when its not even remotely true when the law gets involved.
You find an unattended backpack? Still not yours.
You find an unattended purse? Still not yours.
You find an unattended wallet? Still not yours.
You find an unattended $20 bill? Still not yours.
You find an unattended candy wrapper? Still not yours.
You find an unattended plastic bottle? Still not yours.
You find an unattended bottle cap? Still not yours.
This is true even when the land these things are found on happens to be your own.
The fact that there is an enormous number of cases of this that the law does not get involved with, where the "finders keepers" theory just happens to work out, doesnt change the facts that if its not yours then its not yours.
Re: (Score:2)
"The fact that there is an enormous number of cases of this that the law does not get involved with, where the "finders keepers" theory just happens to work out, doesnt change the facts that if its not yours then its not yours."
I'm an high seas pirate, you insensitive clod!
Oh! and Arrr!
Half of your examples are wrong. (Score:1)
You find an unattended candy wrapper? Still not yours. You find an unattended plastic bottle? Still not yours. You find an unattended bottle cap? Still not yours.
Legally, if you pick them up, those will indeed be treated as yours if you put them back down.
Just try it.
He'll correct your misconception very quickly.
Re: (Score:2)
Only accurate in given (simple) circumstances. How hard can it be to just google this for the basics?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
There is no hard and fast rule of ownership in all cases. If there were we wouldn't need a vast global legal system and an entire industry of lawyers making their living on figuring out who owns what.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
While you correctly point out the legal complexities which have arisen surrounding an original “finders keepers” declaration of intent, it is also important you don’t lose sight of the “losers weepers” codicil.
Re: Was it truly stolen? (Score:1)
Wait bottle caps are up for grabs. Never leave an unattended caps stash behind!
Re: (Score:2)
If what you find is reasonably construed as litter, then nobody is going to fine you for picking it up. Your plastic bottle and bottle cap examples are dumb.
In all your other examples, the typical means of processing is that you take it to the police and get some kind of receipt for it, and if nobody claims it, it's yours. So it's not yours right away, but it could be yours.
Re: (Score:1)
You can be sure that if Coke, Pepsi, Mac Donalds, Chevron etc pay to put up a piece of public art (Advertisement) then you can be sure to go to jail if you put their litter in the bin. If you as a private citizen make use of public space for your art you go to jail. Someone owns all the "public space" and the public cannot use it.
Re: (Score:2)
Hey! We do the trash hauling in these parts. You come into our territory and Sal and Carmine will stop by and have a little talk with youse.
Stainless Steel Monoliths are so out (Score:3)
Now the fad has gone to Gingerbread Monoliths.
But beware Hansel and Gretel!
https://www.theguardian.com/us... [theguardian.com]
Re: (Score:2)
"Now the fad has gone to Gingerbread Monoliths."
I was mildly annoyed by the first monolith stories. The gingerbread one made me smile.
Re: (Score:2)
We're already destroying the parks (Score:2)
have a public decision on if there should be a place where people can place art on public lands,
We already have people deliberately destroying [usnews.com] parts of national [cnn.com] and state parks [thevintagenews.com]. People even took advantage of the shutdown to destroy parks [theguardian.com]. Why would we want to give a single inch to people to destroy more land?
why is this on slashdot (Score:1)
Re: why is this on slashdot (Score:2)
You *could* care less? How much less could you care?
BLM (Score:2)
I appreciate all the work and valid input they provide on police reform, but that don't mean they should have final say of what happens to monoliths. That's going a bit too far.
Stolen? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It was litter that was removed from public land. Do you accuse the Department of Sanitation of "stealing" the garbage from your trash bins every week?
If I place something in my garbage bin and wheel it to the curb, implicitly I am acknowledging that the city will come and take it away. When the city does, it's not stealing.
I also no longer have an expectation of privacy. The police can search my garbage without a warrant once I put it at the curb (here in California anyway.)
However, whether you can help yourself to my trash at the curb is another matter. In some states, you may be guilty of a crime if you do so without my permission.
As for the monolith,
I know I shouldn't be disapointed (Score:2)
But I am. Why in God's name did armies of people have to show up and trash the area? I know, I know, you want to see it but that's no reason to show up and be jerks. I want lots of things but because I'm, y'know, an adult, I restrain myself.
Even more disappointing, why in the world would people want to destroy it? It's a hunk of metal in an obscure desert corner. Leave it be. Why the urgent need to meddle in someone else's business?
Moving on, what gives Lewis, Christensen, and Manson the right to remove it?
Re: (Score:2)
But I am. Why in God's name did armies of people have to show up and trash the area? I know, I know, you want to see it but that's no reason to show up and be jerks. I want lots of things but because I'm, y'know, an adult, I restrain myself.
Even more disappointing, why in the world would people want to destroy it? It's a hunk of metal in an obscure desert corner. Leave it be. Why the urgent need to meddle in someone else's business?
Moving on, what gives Lewis, Christensen, and Manson the right to remove it? It isn't their monolith or their land. Let the artists and/or BLM people take care of it.
Nothing gave anyone the right to put it there.
Nothing gave anyone the right to destroy it.
Nothing gave anyone the right to remove it.
They just did it anyway.
Now that we've got that out of the way, maybe you can see where this is headed.
Do you want ... (Score:2)
BLM's Management Cowards (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The problem was people. Tons of idiots had to see this thing and because people are morons they left behind trash and literal shit. https://www.abc4.com/news/top-... [abc4.com] This is why we can't have nice things.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Come on. They managed to not crack up laughing when they were trying to pretend to be serious. What more can you ask for?
It reminds me of a teacher who had to bite his cheek and run out of the cafeteria to prevent anyone from seeing him laugh -- after someone threw a cherry bomb into the 2 gallon bowl of Ketchup the naive cafeteria staff had put out for self service :-)
Nobody ever got caught for that one (although, I hear from the grapevine that a number of dry cleaning bills got discretely paid).
Utah Monolith Questions (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Actually lots of words have been produced on those subjects, you're just too lazy to find them.
It's a steel frame with stainless steel sheets screwed to it.
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry, they were screwed to it. The initial report claimed screwed.
Either way, this shit is on Wikipedia. If you really wanted to know, you'd look it up.
Entitlement is indicative of narcissism. (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
The douche bags that removed the Utah monument were not within their rights to do so. Regardless of whether the thing was illegally installed, this does not give anyone else the right to destroy and remove it.
I disagree. If it's illegally installed, it is functionally litter. And the land belongs to The People.
These guys are assholes, entitled assholes, and there is a clinical term for it: narcissists.
You mean the people who put it in? Yeah, I couldn't agree more.
They should all receive stiff fines ($5000 each should do it), and be compelled to sit for psychological evaluations, and then be compelled to receive whatever treatment is recommended. We can all do with less narcissists, and they can be cured!
You do I hope realize that all of us here on Slashdot who think our opinions are so fucking important that we have to share them with the world are going to need treatment as well, right? As well as all the twitter users, and most of the Facebook users...
Re: (Score:2)
The douche bags that removed the Utah monument were not within their rights to do so. Regardless of whether the thing was illegally installed, this does not give anyone else the right to destroy and remove it.
I disagree. If it's illegally installed, it is functionally litter. And the land belongs to The People.
Well, you are simply wrong. Three assholes are not "The People." They illegally undermined the authority of the BLM, a federal agency, meaning they are guilty of federal crime. At the least they are guilty of obstruction of justice, but also vandalism, even if the original installment itself was vandalism. Two wrongs don't make it right. The ability or right of a citizen of the United States, with no affiliation with law enforcement, to act in that capacity is limited to citizens arrest, and that is an incr
Care Less? (Score:1)
Leave it cleaner than you found it (Score:1)
BLM (Score:2)
It's a good thing you specified it's the Bureau of Land Management taking about it, because I was wondering why the Black Lives Matter decentralized political and social movement was interested in so-called monoliths.
Yep, these ole boys are fucked. (Score:2)
"The BLM "doesn't want to set a precedent that people can just go out onto public lands and take things away," according to a report from Outside magazine."
Look folks, law enforcement can and will lie to you if it will help them achieve their ends. And they *will* get away with it.
The other universal truth to know about them is that somewhere, somehow, someone will pay. And if they can't figure out who put it there originally and punish them, then they'll do the next best thing and go after the parties th