(October 9, 2014 at 8:57 pm)Jenny A Wrote: In a logical world, I'm sure you'd be right, but since the owners of the statue and the property didn't want to press charges, and the DA charged ahead anyway, I'm not at all sure of that. It's the opinion of those who, like the DA think it perfectly fine and necessary law, who's opinion I'm interested in.
...but your hypothetical carries the 'crime scene' to a place far outside the DA's jurisdiction (to California, I believe, where the facebook servers are located). I wouldn't, however, be so surprised to hear that this hypothetical kid was arrested some time later, on entirely separate charges....and we would perhaps be reading about, say, a 14 year old kid who got two years in juvenile detention for possesion of a controlled substance with intent to distribute, or something like that. I personally know of worse cases of illegal prosecutorial abuse that have happened over situaitons that wre far, far less "offensive" than offending a DA's religion.
Quote:I think it's a case about mocking religion. So I think do you.
It likely means different things to different people. For the DA, you are likely right, this case was all about punishing someone who mocked his religion. For the kid parents, the case may have only been about saving face in their community, or perhaps a tool to discipline their uncontrollable teen. For me I think this case is about a prank that overstepped acceptable social boundaries that I am not particularly comfortable accepting (even though, in this particular case, I found it hilarious).
What I think about most of all, however, is my own hypothetical. What if I chose to place a memorial statue for my dead mother on my front lawn, and I chose to portray her in a pose that I innocently didn't recognize to be a rather suggestive position -- and now, after great expense I discover my error when a local neighborhood teen hops my fence so he can pose for pictures while he mimicks having sex with mother's memorial.....and then the law did nothing about it, so more copy-cat teens came to repeat the stunt. Is it right that I as the owner of both statue and land, now have to chose between putting up with the nuisance of a potential parade of idiot sons who might find this kind of thing too funny to resist? Should I just keep my shot gun loaded with rock salt by the front window ready to blast anyone I might catch humping my mother's face? Or is it more sane and just and fair to expect my society's legal system to do something to dissuade these local youths from violating my property rights, by simply punishing one (or more) with a small slap on the wrist (like community service)?
For me, I prefer to live in a society where people have both the right to place whatever stupid statues they want on the lawns anytime any place, for any reasons (as long as they conform to local ordinances and CCRs), but also have the peace of mind to know they can do so without much concern that it will be an invitation for stupid people to actually, physically mess around with my personal property without my permission. I also want to live in a society where everyone else who views these publicly viewable statues on my property feel free to openly mock and ridicule my choice in artwork all they want in the public arena . But when such mockery enlists the physical use of my actual property, without my permission...I think it crosses a legal line that I very much think is worth protecting.
So, for me, this case is not about mocking religion at all. I personally think this case is about something a little more meaningful and tangible and I am hoping that at least a few people here might see through what I see as a overblown sense of "government oppression" to realize there are bigger issues involved.