Last weekend, participants in a peaceful protest at Civic Circle in Longview decorated the sidewalks with chalked political messages — a long-standing and completely legal tradition of expressive speech. By Monday afternoon, city workers had washed away some of the messages, sparking an online debate over whether such chalking constitutes graffiti or vandalism. Some social media users went so far as to publicly identify alleged participants, raising questions about free speech and civic engagement in Cowlitz County.

The distinction here isn’t merely cosmetic — it’s constitutional.

Vandalism and graffiti laws exist to prevent permanent damage. Chalk washes away with water and leaves no residual mark. The act causes no harm to property, and as such, courts have consistently found it to be qualitatively different from paint or etching. Across jurisdictions, judges have ruled that chalking does not meet the legal definition of vandalism. It is water‑soluble, temporary, and symbolic — precisely the type of low‑impact expression that the First Amendment was written to protect.

Public sidewalks and parks are legally defined “traditional public forums.” They are foundational spaces for protest, art, and political speech. The First Amendment protects both verbal and nonverbal communication, including drawings and written messages, provided they don’t threaten safety or promote imminent violence. Whether one agrees or disagrees with the message, the right to express it in chalk belongs to everyone.

Even in larger cities such as Seattle, courts have recently scrutinized overly broad graffiti laws that police have tried to apply against sidewalk chalkers during demonstrations. Those enforcement attempts have triggered free‑speech challenges and clarifying judicial opinions reaffirming that temporary, political chalking is expression — not vandalism.

The same principle applies in Longview. The city’s prompt removal of chalk markings was an administrative choice about public space maintenance, not a legal judgment about their permissibility. Cleaning the sidewalks doesn’t retrospectively criminalize the speech.

Calling political chalk art “graffiti” only invites confusion and discourages civic participation. It weaponizes maintenance policy against expression. A community grounded in liberty and law should celebrate non‑destructive speech in public forums — not shame or criminalize it.

In summary: sidewalk chalking is transient, non‑damaging, and constitutionally protected. The rain will take care of it soon enough; the First Amendment requires us to let speech flourish until then.