Implied BJ on Jesus, atheists support teen.

[Heywood]

Heywood, I'm disappointed in you.

You think just because a law is on the books it should be enforced? It used to be a law that one could chop off the foot of an escaped slave as just punishment. There are many unjust and unconstitutional laws. Fortunately, if this idiot DA takes it far enough, this law will almost certainly be struck down.

I don't think all laws on the books should be enforced. However you are shifting the goal posts here. I was responding to FatandFaithless's claim that they "would not be able to legally proesecute". The law is on the books and their is nothing illegal about using it to prosecute someone.

The "crime" was not using an object as an item of free speech. The crime was desecration of a venerated object. That's it. The statue was on private property BUT (and a major BUT), in a publicly accessible area.

For anything other than a Jesus statue, the only recourse the property owner would have is telling someone to knock it off and get off the property. If they don't, they could be cited for trespass. That set of laws is sufficient to handle these sorts of issues.

People here are claiming the kid can't be prosecuted for a crime because he is protected by a constitutional right to free speech. I am responding to that argument by showing such speech is not protected under the constitution.

The law is inappropriately giving an elevated status to this *particular* object. Obviously, it is on the basis of being a religious object. That part is clearly unconstitutional.

Read the law...it doesn't specify any particular object. If no particular object is specified in the law then it is not possible this particular object is being elevated by the law.

The easy thought experiment you've yet to respond to: If the statue were of anything else: Jefferson, Darwin, Einstein, Mickey Mouse, would those count as "venerated" objects? You know they would not. Hence the law cannot be applied without taking the religious context of the statue and its location into account.

An object venerated by one community may not be venerated by another. An object may not be venerated by any community. Over time a community might stop venerating a particular object. This is why the law doesn't specify a particular object.....its intentionally vague so that it may be applied on a case by case basis.

---

Imagine the outrage if intermediately after the Ferguson shooting all the cops that arrived started to tea-bagging Michael Browns body.

Then, immediately after that, imagine the outrage of tea-bagging a statue....

It's a different outrage, isn't it?

If the statue is not venerated there will be no outrage.

[Esquilax]

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.

Elitist, really? My position, that people can be wrong about things, and that we should live in an egalitarian society where the emotional feelings of a community don't trample over the rights of the minority is elitist? Truly spoken like someone safely nestled within the bosom of the majority.

I know it might be hard for you to imagine, but for someone in a minority group that a lot of people would actually very much like to silence and denigrate and segregate, those federal laws that prevent communities from just running roughshod over everything they disapprove of are actually very valuable. Not just valuable, I'd argue that they're essential; we supposedly live in an equal, free society, but you're arguing for literally the opposite of that, where everyone's rights are conditional based on whether a lot of people agree with them or not. I only hope someday you end up as a hated minority, so you can see how truly frightening such a prospect is.

Not that your "oh, you're elitist because you think you know better than the community!" crap actually pans out anyway, because this isn't about the community. The community isn't the one prosecuting him, and you don't even have any measure of public support behind this action, so all this "what the community wants," nonsense is merely a convenient smokescreen to hide behind. All you can really say is that certain elements of the local police force, no doubt christian themselves, support the notion. I wonder, are they elitist for thinking they know better than the community? Or is that just for people you disagree with?

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.

No, I'm trying to expose the blatant special pleading in your argument by demonstrating that your drive for the community to pick and choose whatever laws it wants is not consistent. Which, I believe, is why you refuse to answer the question, because it puts you in an awkward spot, as I fully intended: either you answer that you would be in favor of segregation laws if they were in the majority (uh oh!) or you answer that you would not be, and expose the insincerity of your stated position.

Which your silence does also, by the way.

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 sad truth is that if it were a statue of Rosa Parks there would probably be no arrest at all. This isn't about the law, this is about christians getting all up in arms over their sacred icon.

And again, you seem to think that community offense and prosecution are somehow linked.

[Thumpalumpacus]

The writers of South Park don't desecrate other peoples property. This kid desecrated someone else's property....an important element that you are ignoring.

The property wasn't desecrated; no change was inflicted upon it.

The only charge here is offense. While the Constitution provides for many rights, no American has the right to be not offended.

Is your Christ so fragile that a practical joke played by a human harms him -- or his followers?

That's some weak shit, brother. I'd recommend you look into a real god, like Marduk, who'd smite the offender with a lightning bolt, or something.

Seriously.

[vorlon13]

Maybe the teen was expecting metzitzah b'peh, not sex ???

Jesus is/was Jewish, after all.

[Brian37]

I'd be interested in hearing how you suppose one would obtain said corpse without committing other crimes in the process.

Pretend you're skullfucking a Hitchens statue all you want and post as far and wide as you can; it's not a crime to be a douche.

Corpses are often put on public display before they are buried. Its called a viewing. Often times corpses are left out in the open for a while before they are picked up. Imagine the outrage if intermediately after the Ferguson shooting all the cops that arrived started to tea-bagging Michael Browns body.

Does anyone believe that the cops have a constitutional right to tea bag the body of someone they just shot?

Once again, not even fucking close, and once again FUCK YOU for even comparing the two.

You know who Ayaan Hersi Ali is? Her documentary friend maker aas stabbed to death with a note stuck in his chest "You'r next" meaning HER. Her crime? The documentary criticized Islam's treatment of women. Ayaan would tell you to you are wrong.

A danish cartoonist was threatened with death for drawing a cartoon of Mohammed with a bomb in his turban. He too would tell you you are wrong.

Salman Rushdie was threaten with death for writing "The Satanic Verses". He too would tell you are wrong.

There was a CHRISTIAN ARTIST, who put a cross in a jar and pissed in it. No, not because he hated Jesus, but because he hated how his fellow Christians were representing his religion. People tried to censor him too. The photo if you want to look it up is called "Piss Christ". He too would tell you you are wrong. Again did so with his own material.

There was an artist a few years back in Italy briefly arrested for painting Jesus on a surfboard. Not even naked or anything, That guy did even less than this teen and with his own material too.

You really have no fucking clue what you are talking about and I am damn glad for the sake of freedom, that morons like you have absolutely no political lawmaking power.

---

There is statue of James Dean at the LA Observatory. I don't have the picture anymore but I stuck my finger up the statue's nose. Now no one cared because it was the 80s. But back when the movie "Rebel Without a Cause" if I had done that with all the fans he had back then, their childish attitude, just like yours, they would have beaten me up. Dean was a loved Icon and the fans consider that a "venerated object" too. And like that teen, I did NOT damage the statue of Dean, just stuck my finger up it's nose.

---

The Afghan Taliban blowing up the Buddhist statues, is a crime to humanity, not because I personally buy into Buddhism, I think all religion is BULLSHIT. It is a crime to humanity because those statues were part of our species history. That teen did not harm that Jesus statue. You have your priorities fucked up.

[FatAndFaithless]

Goddamn Heywood, if you think fucking a corpse is the same as goofing around on a statue... yikes.

[Brian37]

TO THE ASSHOLES WHO WANT BLASPHEMY LAWS, this is the crap it leads to.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/se...mir-aslani

[Mister Agenda]

Corpses are often put on public display before they are buried. Its called a viewing. Often times corpses are left out in the open for a while before they are picked up. Imagine the outrage if intermediately after the Ferguson shooting all the cops that arrived started to tea-bagging Michael Browns body.

Does anyone believe that the cops have a constitutional right to tea bag the body of someone they just shot?

In America, corpses are often put on display in a funeral home, not public display. Disturbing a body with a death requiring an inquest is a criminal act, and that includes any death where a physcician was not present. It's a health code violation, handling dead bodies safely requires training.

AND IT"S THE BODY OF AN ACTUAL PERSON YOU ETHICAL IDIOT! It's not 'venerated', it's loved by people in the midst of shock and grief and maybe outrage. I would have no sympathy for a cop shot dead while abusing a corpse, and I think a jury would let the shooter off lightly. That's because juries are mostly composed of people with normal sensibilities.

I'm not kidding when I say this, I intend it as serious advice that I hope you follow: you need to get professional help. There is something seriously wrong with you.

[Brian37]

If you tea bag a dead body at a funeral, the crime is disturbing the peace on top of the crime of sanitary issues, not to mention trespassing. But it is NOT a crime for say Westboro Baptist Church to be on a public sidewalk outside the venue protesting that dead person. If you are not impeding motion of others, and not violating noise laws, and not trespassing on private property, you are not committing a crime.

When I die, my friends and family will have a wake of some sort. And the event will be private. Outside that event I really do not give one fuck what others might say about me. I wouldn't have the ability to care anyway, I will be dead.

Same crap with burning a flag. If it belongs to someone and not you, it is a crime. If it creates a safety hazard, that too is a crime. But if that flag belongs to you and you want to burn it and no one gets physically hurt, it does not matter one fuck who might get offended by it.

You put the value in an an object rather than the value of that teen being put in jail for what? Muslim men pour acid on women's faces if they disobey them. These same assholes will threaten violence or even murder you over a mere cartoon.

Get your fucking priorities in order.

[Heywood]

In America, corpses are often put on display in a funeral home, not public display. Disturbing a body with a death requiring an inquest is a criminal act, and that includes any death where a physcician was not present. It's a health code violation, handling dead bodies safely requires training.

AND IT"S THE BODY OF AN ACTUAL PERSON YOU ETHICAL IDIOT! It's not 'venerated', it's loved by people in the midst of shock and grief and maybe outrage. I would have no sympathy for a cop shot dead while abusing a corpse, and I think a jury would let the shooter off lightly. That's because juries are mostly composed of people with normal sensibilities.

I'm not kidding when I say this, I intend it as serious advice that I hope you follow: you need to get professional help. There is something seriously wrong with you.

Mister Agenda....you are missing the point.

Others have claimed that prosecuting this teen is un-constitutional because the teen did not damage the property and has a right to free speech. I say they are wrong. The constitution protects free speech but it does not protect speech in which someone else's private property is commandeered and used as prop.

If desecrating a dead body by simulating "tea-bagging" is not protected under the constitution then desecrating a statue belonging to someone else by simulating a blow job is not protected either. You either have a constitutional right to commandeer props for your speech or you do not.

In my opinion, the Ferguson cop who shot and killed Michael Brown has no constitutional right to desecrate Brown's body by tea bagging it because he would be commandeering something that does not belong to him and using it as prop in his speech. If the cop actually did that, I would say his constitutional rights were not being violated if he was prosecuted and jailed for it even if they determined he shot the kid in self defense. In my opinion this teen has no constitutional right to desecrate someone else's statue by simulating a blow job with it under the same principle.

Now if the teen has no constitutional right to desecrate someone else's property(even if doing so causes no physical damage), then such actions can be criminalized.

Do I think this teen should be prosecuted. I do not. Do I think desecration which doesn't result in property damage be criminalized? I do not....and have said that multiple times in this thread. I acknowledge that such acts can be criminalized because the right to desecrate venerated things that do not belong to you does not exist in the constitution.

That is it....that is my position. Where is the flaw that makes me a sick individual who needs help? There are people here who do need help in formulating consistent positions....are you one of them?