RE: Implied BJ on Jesus, atheists support teen.
September 28, 2014 at 1:30 pm
(This post was last modified: September 28, 2014 at 1:37 pm by Heywood.)
(September 28, 2014 at 10:32 am)Esquilax Wrote: So where do you draw the line? Do Star Wars fans get to imprison George Lucas for the prequel movies? Do I get to press criminal charges against the producers of Sword Art Online for how terrible that series got? There's a lot of fans of either of those things, what argument could you produce against that that wouldn't also ensnare Jesus statues?
Once you start allowing desecration charges to be placed based on perceived disrespect to fictional characters, where do you stop, and why? Because what I think is that you're special pleading, here.
I don't draw the line.....the community draws the line. 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.
(September 28, 2014 at 10:32 am)Esquilax Wrote: You have completely misjudged what the argument is about, but that's hardly surprising, at this point.
There are a couple of different arguments going on in this thread that I have addressed. Apparently you can't see multiple arguments and only focus in on the one which is important to you. I suspect this is why you errantly conclude that I am misjudging what the argument is about.
(September 28, 2014 at 10:56 am)LastPoet Wrote: What about those good christians at westboro baptist church picketing dead soldiers funerals? Why isn't some DA taking measures against them... Oh wait...
You have a constitution which protects free speech. If the WBC start violating people's property rights then something can be done about.
(September 28, 2014 at 11:22 am)Brakeman Wrote: The analogy is incorrect. It is not analogous to an personal identity. The jesus image of the stature is known to not exist in that form. We know well that he was not a white European man. We have no unimpeachable evidence that he ever existed at all. A more apt comparison is a flag or other standard.
If a kid performed such an act on a stature that looked nothing like my mother, and I had never met my mother, and I had no rational reason to think my mother even existed at all, then I wouldn't be pushing to punish the kid in any way.
All you are saying is the kid should be punished for desecrating things that you venerate....but if you don't venerate them then the kids should not be punished.
What gives you the right to decide what things should be protected by law from desecration and what shouldn't?
