Implied BJ on Jesus, atheists support teen.

[Jenny A]

I'd be curious to read the law that this kid alledgedly violated before making a firm judgement. Presumably the statue is private property and the state has an obligation to uphold the property rights of the owners. My first thoughts on this are that if it warrants prosecution it should be handled as a civil matter and not a criminal one.

I'd be curious to read that law too. I suspect whatever it is, is either a violation of the right to free speech, freedom of religion or both. Trespass is another matter. But the photo does nothing more than prove his presence on church property with regard to trespass.

---

The kid is guilty of desecrating someone else's private property. That's clear from the picture. The people who erected the statue....who presumably once found inspiration from it may now only think of that desecration instead when they view it.....so in a real sense the property owners have been damaged by being deprived of the inspiration they once had.

What right does the kid have to do what he did? Free speech doesn't apply here because free speech doesn't give you the right to use someone else's property to make a point. If I used an image of Micky and Minnie Mouse hot boxing to promote the legalization of marijuana, Disney would have a cause of action against me.

I still think it silly to prosecute this as a criminal manner, but if the owners of the statue wanted to take the kid to court....I don't have a problem with that. The state should uphold the property rights of property owners.

Um, did he hurt the statue. Smear it with paint? Break it? He did not.

It's trespass. Anything else is covered by free speech.

If someone walks onto my lawn against my wishes, it's trespass. Flipping me the bird is disrespectful, but doesn't add to the crime.