(September 28, 2014 at 3:10 pm)Heywood Wrote: For the sake of argument lets assume Hovind's action constituted desecration(I don't think it did....but what ever)....I think it should be left up to the community to determine if desecration of that particular monument constituted a crime.

So, you're not in favor of protecting the sensibilities of minorities, only those in majority apparently.

Awesome.

(September 28, 2014 at 3:50 pm)Cthulhu Dreaming Wrote:

(September 28, 2014 at 3:10 pm)Heywood Wrote: For the sake of argument lets assume Hovind's action constituted desecration(I don't think it did....but what ever)....I think it should be left up to the community to determine if desecration of that particular monument constituted a crime.

So, you're not in favor of protecting the sensibilities of minorities, only those in majority apparently.

Awesome

I don't think any desecration that doesn't result in physical property damage should be criminalized. Concerning the situation we are discussing, if the owners of the statue felt they have been damaged in some way, then they would be free to seek compensation in civil courts.

That being said if we are going to have anti desecration laws then somehow a line has to be drawn to determine when the law should apply and when it shouldn't. The community should determine that line. I think that would be better than you or I....or certainly some freak like Minimalist determining that line.

Does that mean the sensibilities of some small minority groups are not going to be protected? Sure....but the world ain't perfect and we are never going to be able to make it perfect. Sometimes you just have to accept that we can't fix every injustice.

(September 28, 2014 at 7:38 pm)Heywood Wrote:

(September 28, 2014 at 3:50 pm)Cthulhu Dreaming Wrote: So, you're not in favor of protecting the sensibilities of minorities, only those in majority apparently.

Awesome

I don't think any desecration that doesn't result in physical property damage should be criminalized. Concerning the situation we are discussing, if the owners of the statue felt they have been damaged in some way, then they would be free to seek compensation in civil courts.

That being said if we are going to have anti desecration laws then somehow a line has to be drawn to determine when the law should apply and when it shouldn't. The community should determine that line. I think that would be better than you or I....or certainly some freak like Minimalist determining that line.

Does that mean the sensibilities of some small minority groups are not going to be protected? Sure....but the world ain't perfect and we are never going to be able to make it perfect. Sometimes you just have to accept that we can't fix every injustice.

Bullshit, the community cannot make blasphemy laws EVER. This was just a teen on a statue that DID NOT get damaged. You cannot take that route with anyone trying to protect any religion. You want to know where crap like that leads, look to the east in places like Saudi Arabia and Iran.

That county violated the First Amendment by making that law in the first place. They are not pissed that he actually did it, they are pissed that he posted the picture on social media so everyone could see him make fun of Jesus. If they get away with that kind of dark age law, then South Park is not safe.

(September 28, 2014 at 1:30 pm)Heywood Wrote: I don't draw the line.....the community draws the line.

But that's just you throwing up your hands and surrendering, once again you're missing the point. Nobody here is arguing that the community hasn't drawn a line, but rather that the line they've drawn isn't rationally justified, in the best interest of the community, or actually against the law. Just saying "that's the way it is!" is the same thing as saying nothing at all.

Quote: Personally I think it is a little silly to prosecute this 14 year old but I'm not outraged by it. I certainly do not think it is unconstitutional or an infringement on his free speech rights. The kid's free speech rights don't allow him to temporarily commandeer someone else's property.

And do you really think jail time is going to be productive? That's why I'm outraged; two years in prison? I can't imagine what he'll learn to do in there, and at the end of that span the very best case scenario is that the community has now given that kid a widened skill set of criminal behaviors and a chip on his shoulder.

Quote: Does that mean the sensibilities of some small minority groups are not going to be protected? Sure....but the world ain't perfect and we are never going to be able to make it perfect. Sometimes you just have to accept that we can't fix every injustice.

We aren't going to even make a single step toward a perfect world if we just give communities carte blanche to make whatever laws they want, heedless of the constitution. I'm curious, would you be one of those people in favor of segregation laws, way back when, because that's what the community wanted? Is this just your standard position, to bend over backwards for the majority?

As if putting your cock on a statute would be 'insjustice'.

Stealing a war memorial plaque to sell the metal for scrap, losing the names of the guys who died in WWI from your local town, that's injustice. A statue of a non existent character getting a guy's dick in his face? If people get offended by that then they need to get over themselves.

(September 28, 2014 at 11:22 am)Brakeman Wrote:

(September 28, 2014 at 10:22 am)Heywood Wrote: to protect the sensibilities of a community.

What is the definition of community sensibilities?

Awaiting an answer

Communities don't get to set their own "standards" or sensibilities when it involves civil rights. If ever there is a place for the Federal government to stick its nose, it is here.

I'm sure there were many towns in the South in the 60s, who would have preferred to not have black people attending their pristine, all-white colleges as such a thing would violate their sensibilities.
Centuries-old sensibilities...

Again, too bad.

(September 28, 2014 at 10:08 pm)Esquilax Wrote: But that's just you throwing up your hands and surrendering, once again you're missing the point. Nobody here is arguing that the community hasn't drawn a line, but rather that the line they've drawn isn't rationally justified, in the best interest of the community, or actually against the law. Just saying "that's the way it is!" is the same thing as saying nothing at all.

Negative Esquilax.

I am not surrendering. I take the position the local governance is the best governance. Its not the topic of this thread so I won't go into why I take that position except to say that positions like yours are elitist. Read what you wrote...you are taking the position that YOU an outsider know what is better for a particular community then the people of the community.

(September 28, 2014 at 10:08 pm)Esquilax Wrote: And do you really think jail time is going to be productive? That's why I'm outraged; two years in prison? I can't imagine what he'll learn to do in there, and at the end of that span the very best case scenario is that the community has now given that kid a widened skill set of criminal behaviors and a chip on his shoulder.

2 years in a juvenile facility is the maximum this kid could receive. I think it quite unlikely that if the kid is prosecuted....he serves any time at all.

(September 28, 2014 at 10:08 pm)Esquilax Wrote: We aren't going to even make a single step toward a perfect world if we just give communities carte blanche to make whatever laws they want, heedless of the constitution. I'm curious, would you be one of those people in favor of segregation laws, way back when, because that's what the community wanted? Is this just your standard position, to bend over backwards for the majority?

I've already argued why I think prosecuting this kid does not violate the constitution. I won't answer your question about segregation laws because it has nothing to do with the topic. Having lost this argument, It is merely an attempt on your part to change the argument to another topic that you think you may have a chance at winning.

---

(September 29, 2014 at 10:08 am)JesusHChrist Wrote: Communities don't get to set their own "standards" or sensibilities when it involves civil rights. If ever there is a place for the Federal government to stick its nose, it is here.

I'm sure there were many towns in the South in the 60s, who would have preferred to not have black people attending their pristine, all-white colleges as such a thing would violate their sensibilities.
Centuries-old sensibilities...

Again, too bad.

Nothing in the constitution says you have the freedom to temporarily commandeer someone else's private property and use it as a prop in your speech.

---

(September 29, 2014 at 9:45 am)Fidel_Castronaut Wrote: As if putting your cock on a statute would be 'insjustice'.

Stealing a war memorial plaque to sell the metal for scrap, losing the names of the guys who died in WWI from your local town, that's injustice. A statue of a non existent character getting a guy's dick in his face? If people get offended by that then they need to get over themselves.

What if it was a statue of Rosa Parks and the community was Ferguson? Would it be okay for that community to get offended if this white kid simulated a sex act with a statue of Rosa Parks in Ferguson?

(September 29, 2014 at 11:16 am)Heywood Wrote:

(September 28, 2014 at 10:08 pm)Esquilax Wrote: But that's just you throwing up your hands and surrendering, once again you're missing the point. Nobody here is arguing that the community hasn't drawn a line, but rather that the line they've drawn isn't rationally justified, in the best interest of the community, or actually against the law. Just saying "that's the way it is!" is the same thing as saying nothing at all.

Negative Esquilax.

I am not surrendering. I take the position the local governance is the best governance. Its not the topic of this thread so I won't go into why I take that position except to say that positions like yours are elitist. Read what you wrote...you are taking the position that YOU an outsider know what is better for a particular community then the people of the community.

(September 28, 2014 at 10:08 pm)Esquilax Wrote: And do you really think jail time is going to be productive? That's why I'm outraged; two years in prison? I can't imagine what he'll learn to do in there, and at the end of that span the very best case scenario is that the community has now given that kid a widened skill set of criminal behaviors and a chip on his shoulder.

2 years in a juvenile facility is the maximum this kid could receive. I think it quite unlikely that if the kid is prosecuted....he serves any time at all.

(September 28, 2014 at 10:08 pm)Esquilax Wrote: We aren't going to even make a single step toward a perfect world if we just give communities carte blanche to make whatever laws they want, heedless of the constitution. I'm curious, would you be one of those people in favor of segregation laws, way back when, because that's what the community wanted? Is this just your standard position, to bend over backwards for the majority?

I've already argued why I think prosecuting this kid does not violate the constitution. I won't answer your question about segregation laws because it has nothing to do with the topic. Having lost this argument, It is merely an attempt on your part to change the argument to another topic that you think you may have a chance at winning.

---

(September 29, 2014 at 10:08 am)JesusHChrist Wrote: Communities don't get to set their own "standards" or sensibilities when it involves civil rights. If ever there is a place for the Federal government to stick its nose, it is here.

I'm sure there were many towns in the South in the 60s, who would have preferred to not have black people attending their pristine, all-white colleges as such a thing would violate their sensibilities.
Centuries-old sensibilities...

Again, too bad.

Nothing in the constitution says you have the freedom to temporarily commandeer someone else's private property and use it as a prop in your speech.

---

(September 29, 2014 at 9:45 am)Fidel_Castronaut Wrote: As if putting your cock on a statute would be 'insjustice'.

Stealing a war memorial plaque to sell the metal for scrap, losing the names of the guys who died in WWI from your local town, that's injustice. A statue of a non existent character getting a guy's dick in his face? If people get offended by that then they need to get over themselves.

What if it was a statue of Rosa Parks and the community was Ferguson? Would it be okay for that community to get offended if this white kid simulated a sex act with a statue of Rosa Parks in Ferguson?

Get this through your thick fucking skull, there is a huge difference between being offended and say Isis and the KKK. Fuck you for comparing the two.

NO ONE HAS THE RIGHT TO BE FREE FROM BEING OFFENDED.

Morons like you never take into account that power shifts over time and a future power might not like what you have to say, then turn merely being offended into a blasphemy law. Then you would be fucked and not be able to say what you want.

This guy was not committing property damage nor did he put pictures on FB saying "kill all Christians". They merely got pissed because he made fun of Jebus.

The only free speech limits are are acts of violence or calls for violence. White people during Park's time were not simply saying "I hate blacks" they were using their speech to call for oppression and even acts of murder.

As an atheist living in America surrounded by a right wing who thinks by mere proxy of my existence, I have no right to be a citizen. You allow for blasphemy laws which is what that teen is charged with, that would fuck me over and allow the majority to do even worse to me long term.

I value my right to offend religion, and as such blasphemy laws controlled by them would erode that right.

Your PC crap does not help.

---

If a believer wanted to burn a copy of Hitchen's "God Is Not Great" as long as they bought it and are not creating a fire hazard I may think they are being assholes, but that is part of living in a free society.

(September 29, 2014 at 11:16 am)Heywood Wrote: What if it was a statue of Rosa Parks and the community was Ferguson? Would it be okay for that community to get offended if this white kid simulated a sex act with a statue of Rosa Parks in Ferguson?

The community could be offended all they want. Unless 'this white kid' damaged the statue or was inciting violence, they would not be legally allowed to prosecute him. Being offended =/= justification for prosecution. I think the kid face-humping the Jesus statue is pretty dumb and a bit childish, but guess what, laws aren't made on what offends people. Next you'll be calling for the prosecution of the Piss Christ artist..

(September 29, 2014 at 11:48 am)FatAndFaithless Wrote:

(September 29, 2014 at 11:16 am)Heywood Wrote: What if it was a statue of Rosa Parks and the community was Ferguson? Would it be okay for that community to get offended if this white kid simulated a sex act with a statue of Rosa Parks in Ferguson?

The community could be offended all they want. Unless 'this white kid' damaged the statue or was inciting violence, they would not be legally allowed to prosecute him. Being offended =/= justification for prosecution. I think the kid face-humping the Jesus statue is pretty dumb and a bit childish, but guess what, laws aren't made on what offends people. Next you'll be calling for the prosecution of the Piss Christ artist..

If the statue was damaged then the crime is property damage. If they put a note on it saying "kill all blacks" that would be a crime regardless of damage.

No one gets to decide who can be offended and who cannot be offended. What everyone can agree on is that speech stops at acts of violence and calls to violence.