WorldNetDaily reports, In a case that some feel should have been erased long ago, the state of Florida is continuing its prosecution of a woman accused of using sidewalk chalk on a local bridge to deliver her thoughts about the illegal immigration debate in America. Rachel Kijewski, 22, of Port St. Lucie, Fla., is due in court this afternoon, as she faces one count of criminal mischief punishable by up to 60 days in jail. According to the Stuart News, police stopped the Florida Atlantic University student as she was writing "Color fades and so does hatred" on the sidewalk of the Roosevelt Bridge June 20 in preparation for a demonstration.

An important aspect of this case: the woman seems to be prosecuted not for the chalk work but for questioning a police officer. The article reports, The paper says Kijewski asked what law she was breaking before she was handcuffed and booked at the Martin County Jail. "I think he truly thought I was doing vandalism. And I told him why I didn't think I was," she said. "I didn't feel like he was comfortable with me asking a question, and that's why I was arrested." Though not documented in the police report, Sgt. Bill Pecci, Ashley's supervisor, said Kijewski continued to draw on the sidewalk after she was told to stop. "If she would have stopped, I don't know if he would have made the arrest. That's what forced the issue," Pecci said. "When we tell someone to stop doing something and they say no, it becomes a battle of the wills, and our will will always win."

Note: if the alleged order to stop was NOT in the report then -- for all official purposes and probably as a matter of fact -- the order did not occur. (The officer's subsequent statement means nothing because policemen often lie.) The act of asking 'what law have I broken' was viewed by the officer as a contest of wills rather than as information every citizen has a right to know.

I am unclear on one point: the article seems to state that the chalking occurred on private property -- a police spokesman called it "someone else's property" -- but then the property is identified as "the sidewalk of the Roosevelt Bridge", which would almost certainly make it public property. This is a key point for me because, if the police were acting on the complaint from an owner whose property was accessed and used without permission, then the arrest was appropriate. If not, not.

I'd be willing to bet money on the latter scenario...and I am one risk-adverse skinflint. The message being sent: question authority and you will be arrested without so much as the right to know which law has been broken. Indeed, the arrest will occur simply because you question authority.