Implied BJ on Jesus, atheists support teen.

[Esquilax]

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.

So you see no difference at all between the body of a human being and a statue?

And for some reason, you've decided that since you can see no difference between the two, that nobody else should be allowed to either? Hmm...

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.

Should that not be left up to the owners of the property itself? The ones that, last I checked, are not pressing charges? I mean, one would think that the functional definition of these crimes should include the input of the owners, or else that definition would encompass people acting even with the permission of the owners, which is literally the opposite of trespassing.

Additionally, the issue is about more than the simple act, it is also about the law in question, here: "Desecration of a venerated object." The argument goes that this is simply thinly veiled blasphemy laws, where the definition of what is venerated leans heavily in favor of, say, christian iconography over anything else. This is a conversation about the purpose and design of the law, something that your- I suspect disingenuous, but I have no way of knowing for sure- argument entirely ignores.