Implied BJ on Jesus, atheists support teen.

[Heywood]

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.

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.

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.

---

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.

---

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?