How good is a design if the law behind it isn't enforced?

I was pleased last week to talk with the Associated Press and just see their article ("Peppier handicapped symbol gets support, but problems remain") on the new icon of access:
 

Finally, a more nuanced discussion of what a symbol might mean. . . Of course, as a disabled person, my relation to the International Symbol of Access is complex:

"On the face of it, it seems like a really positive step to take," said Elizabeth Guffey, a professor of art and design history at State University of New York at Purchase. "When you start thinking about it more fully, it brings up more questions."

Indeed, I have a great deal more to say about the older symbol, and its usage. I've grown so tired of able-bodied people parking in spots designated for the disabled that I've begun photographing cars I find doing this. This car had no hangtag and was parked (illegally) in the last disabled parking spot at my work. Using my hangtag, I parked in a metered space next to it. When I returned, I got a parking ticket, but this person did not. How good is a design if the law behind it isn't enforced?

An act of rogue design?

The New York Times just published an article the mysterious appearance of Arabic graffiti in the HBO series Homeland.  Appearing in the background of a scene depicting a Syrian refugee camp was graffiti reading "There is no Homeland" and "Homeland is racist."

The producers hired designer Heba Y. Amin (MFA Design, Minnesota) to help transform the set, a Berlin street, into an unnamed Middle Eastern venue. Interesting that the Times called these communications"street art."  When, I wonder, is something "art" and when does it get counted as an act of rogue or subversive "design activism?"