Ok so riddle me this. If all it took was asking the government to request the ability to paint, if that same official giving the greenlight were unbiased, then by virtue of the first amendment, any and all messages should be paintable. So by that logic, they shouldn't have needed a proper warrant given that the government has now mandated this public space as free expression.

So the question becomes did they prosecute people because of public disobedience? Or did they prosecute these people because of their message? And I think we all know the answer.