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.