To hell with Jeebus

(October 9, 2014 at 7:23 pm)HopOnPop Wrote: I think I am the only massochist here so I'll give you my two cents. I don't think the kid would deserve any punishment for a photoshop mock up. I am fairly sure that the mere appearance of this picture on facebook itself is not a violation of the law in anyway. The photo merely became the document for which the prosecutor can use to prove the 'desecration" actually took place. As a photoshopped image, it would merely be freedom of expression, a piece of artwork.

In a logical world, I'm sure you'd be right, but since the owners of the statue and the property didn't want to press charges, and the DA charged ahead anyway, I'm not at all sure of that. It's the opinion of those who, like the DA think it perfectly fine and necessary law, who's opinion I'm interested in. I think it's a case about mocking religion. So I think do you.

(October 9, 2014 at 8:57 pm)Jenny A Wrote: In a logical world, I'm sure you'd be right, but since the owners of the statue and the property didn't want to press charges, and the DA charged ahead anyway, I'm not at all sure of that. It's the opinion of those who, like the DA think it perfectly fine and necessary law, who's opinion I'm interested in.

...but your hypothetical carries the 'crime scene' to a place far outside the DA's jurisdiction (to California, I believe, where the facebook servers are located). I wouldn't, however, be so surprised to hear that this hypothetical kid was arrested some time later, on entirely separate charges....and we would perhaps be reading about, say, a 14 year old kid who got two years in juvenile detention for possesion of a controlled substance with intent to distribute, or something like that. I personally know of worse cases of illegal prosecutorial abuse that have happened over situaitons that wre far, far less "offensive" than offending a DA's religion.

Quote:I think it's a case about mocking religion. So I think do you.

It likely means different things to different people. For the DA, you are likely right, this case was all about punishing someone who mocked his religion. For the kid parents, the case may have only been about saving face in their community, or perhaps a tool to discipline their uncontrollable teen. For me I think this case is about a prank that overstepped acceptable social boundaries that I am not particularly comfortable accepting (even though, in this particular case, I found it hilarious).

What I think about most of all, however, is my own hypothetical. What if I chose to place a memorial statue for my dead mother on my front lawn, and I chose to portray her in a pose that I innocently didn't recognize to be a rather suggestive position -- and now, after great expense I discover my error when a local neighborhood teen hops my fence so he can pose for pictures while he mimicks having sex with mother's memorial.....and then the law did nothing about it, so more copy-cat teens came to repeat the stunt. Is it right that I as the owner of both statue and land, now have to chose between putting up with the nuisance of a potential parade of idiot sons who might find this kind of thing too funny to resist? Should I just keep my shot gun loaded with rock salt by the front window ready to blast anyone I might catch humping my mother's face? Or is it more sane and just and fair to expect my society's legal system to do something to dissuade these local youths from violating my property rights, by simply punishing one (or more) with a small slap on the wrist (like community service)?

For me, I prefer to live in a society where people have both the right to place whatever stupid statues they want on the lawns anytime any place, for any reasons (as long as they conform to local ordinances and CCRs), but also have the peace of mind to know they can do so without much concern that it will be an invitation for stupid people to actually, physically mess around with my personal property without my permission. I also want to live in a society where everyone else who views these publicly viewable statues on my property feel free to openly mock and ridicule my choice in artwork all they want in the public arena . But when such mockery enlists the physical use of my actual property, without my permission...I think it crosses a legal line that I very much think is worth protecting.

So, for me, this case is not about mocking religion at all. I personally think this case is about something a little more meaningful and tangible and I am hoping that at least a few people here might see through what I see as a overblown sense of "government oppression" to realize there are bigger issues involved.

(October 10, 2014 at 12:16 am)HopOnPop Wrote: ...but your hypothetical carries the 'crime scene' to a place far outside the DA's jurisdiction (to California, I believe, where the facebook servers are located).

Jurisdiction is based on where the post was uploaded from, not where the servers are based. If I make libelous comments on a blog post and you sue me, I cannot get it kicked because the servers are hosted in Singapore.

(October 10, 2014 at 12:16 am)HopOnPop Wrote: It likely means different things to different people. For the DA, you are likely right, this case was all about punishing someone who mocked his religion.

Which is the only thing relevant here.

(October 10, 2014 at 12:16 am)HopOnPop Wrote: For the kid parents, the case may have only been about saving face in their community, or perhaps a tool to discipline their uncontrollable teen.

Or it was all about getting him out of trouble the surest and easiest way possible.

(October 10, 2014 at 12:16 am)HopOnPop Wrote: For me I think this case is about a prank that overstepped acceptable social boundaries that I am not particularly comfortable accepting (even though, in this particular case, I found it hilarious).

That's the thing - "acceptable" social norms is such a vague rule.

(October 10, 2014 at 12:16 am)HopOnPop Wrote: What I think about most of all, however, is my own hypothetical. What if I chose to place a memorial statue for my dead mother on my front lawn, and I chose to portray her in a pose that I innocently didn't recognize to be a rather suggestive position -- and now, after great expense I discover my error when a local neighborhood teen hops my fence so he can pose for pictures while he mimicks having sex with mother's memorial.....and then the law did nothing about it, so more copy-cat teens came to repeat the stunt. Is it right that I as the owner of both statue and land, now have to chose between putting up with the nuisance of a potential parade of idiot sons who might find this kind of thing too funny to resist? Should I just keep my shot gun loaded with rock salt by the front window ready to blast anyone I might catch humping my mother's face? Or is it more sane and just and fair to expect my society's legal system to do something to dissuade these local youths from violating my property rights, by simply punishing one (or more) with a small slap on the wrist (like community service)?

For me, I prefer to live in a society where people have both the right to place whatever stupid statues they want on the lawns anytime any place, for any reasons (as long as they conform to local ordinances and CCRs), but also have the peace of mind to know they can do so without much concern that it will be an invitation for stupid people to actually, physically mess around with my personal property without my permission. I also want to live in a society where everyone else who views these publicly viewable statues on my property feel free to openly mock and ridicule my choice in artwork all they want in the public arena . But when such mockery enlists the physical use of my actual property, without my permission...I think it crosses a legal line that I very much think is worth protecting.

I would agree - but nothing about your hypothetical applies here.

The statue wasn't on private property - it was on the side of the road. It was no one's front lawn, there were no fences to keep people out so there was no trespass. The statue was in a public forum. There was also no physical damage to the property like graffiti - so even if the statue itself is private property, there is no charge of vandalism.

In your hypothetical, it'd be like if you make a memorial statue of your mother and put it in public park - there, every kid is free to take pictures simulating sex with your mother and there is nothing you can do about it. On the other hand, if the statue is on private property, then a sign "trespassers will be prosecuted" should keep those kids away.

(October 10, 2014 at 12:16 am)HopOnPop Wrote: So, for me, this case is not about mocking religion at all. I personally think this case is about something a little more meaningful and tangible and I am hoping that at least a few people here might see through what I see as a overblown sense of "government oppression" to realize there are bigger issues involved.

It isn't. The crime here is "offending sensibilities" which is in no way more meaningful or tangible than government oppression. You want to make it more meaningful, which is why you are bringing up hypotheticals like "potential to incite violence", "potential intimidation", "violation of property rights" and so on - but none of them are applicable here.

The statute violates the Ten Commandments and it doesn't look anything like Jesus anyway.

(October 5, 2014 at 9:39 pm)HopOnPop Wrote:

(October 5, 2014 at 7:22 pm)genkaus Wrote: I disagree - offending someone's sensibilities is not and should be a criminal offense.

(October 5, 2014 at 8:02 pm)Chas Wrote: There is no role for government in limiting speech that is offensive. It is the slipperiest of slopes.

You're going to riot? You're going to get arrested or shot.

Agreed, but this is not the legal/social principle I am working from. If all one can muster is, "I'm offended" there is no criminal act to be had. But when one can rightly assume a particular response from a given action of expression (like shouting fire in a crowded theatre), many courts (including SCOTUS) have long upheld the principle of holding the speaker criminally responsible for an outcome. Its also why white supremasist leaders who merely write books and give speeches have been successfully prosecuted for violent crimes committed by others inspired by such writings. It is also the reason why Charles Manson is in jail for murder even though he never committed any murders directly (that we know about).

Manson is in jail for conspiracy to commit murder. This is not a free speech issue.

Quote:Similar arguments can be made regarding other forms of speech, like when one burns a flag or desecrates a venerated figures in public in the wrong place at the wrong time (yes, context matters). The act may not be criminal, but the caused criminal actions produced in other people, can thus make the initial act partially punishable for the ensuing damages/crimes -- and I believe rightly so.

The actual crimes in those cases are conspiracy or incitement, not simple speech.

Quote:I totally agree that this kind of legal precedent is a difficult row to hoe, hence why each case must be addressed individually, and hopefully anyone found guilty has a line or two of available appeals courts to re-consider their case.

Now, in the case of face-humping Jesus, clearly we aren't remotely in the same category as the crimes I used to illustrate the legal/social principle I am following, but nonetheless I can understand how a court might see this childish crime worth, at the very least, a slap on the wrist because of this principle.

The face-humping kid committed no crime; he offended some people, no conspiracy, no incitement.

All I got to say is the dude who did that to the statue is a fucking idiot. If he has a car accident tomorrow, it's a tragedy, because he lived nothing so far and society is partially responsible for his lack of life.

(October 12, 2014 at 1:48 pm)Ksa Wrote: All I got to say is the dude who did that to the statue is a fucking idiot. If he has a car accident tomorrow, it's a tragedy, because he lived nothing so far and society is partially responsible for his lack of life.

Odd you would say that. I've been hunting high and low to find a jesus/mary/lamb/mohamed statute to dry hump and post to faceboink.

Such an experience would be like a capstone of my life. No degree or professional achievement would come close! But I am a very naughty man. Very.

Unfortunately such things are as rare as real gods around these parts.

(October 13, 2014 at 8:54 pm)JesusHChrist Wrote:

(October 12, 2014 at 1:48 pm)Ksa Wrote: All I got to say is the dude who did that to the statue is a fucking idiot. If he has a car accident tomorrow, it's a tragedy, because he lived nothing so far and society is partially responsible for his lack of life.

Odd you would say that. I've been hunting high and low to find a jesus/mary/lamb/mohamed statute to dry hump and post to faceboink.

Such an experience would be like a capstone of my life. No degree or professional achievement would come close! But I am a very naughty man. Very.

Unfortunately such things are as rare as real gods around these parts.

There is a NYPD statue in front of their Police center, do that there lol.

Ny is rather a long way from the Pacific north west but next time I'm in ny, I'll keep that in mind