Oh jesus you naughty boy. Better luck next time.

[genkaus]

...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).

Jurisdiction is based on where the post was uploaded from, not where the servers are based. If I make libelous comments on a blog post and you sue me, I cannot get it kicked because the servers are hosted in Singapore.

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.

Which is the only thing relevant here.

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.

Or it was all about getting him out of trouble the surest and easiest way possible.

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).

That's the thing - "acceptable" social norms is such a vague rule.

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.

I would agree - but nothing about your hypothetical applies here.

The statue wasn't on private property - it was on the side of the road. It was no one's front lawn, there were no fences to keep people out so there was no trespass. The statue was in a public forum. There was also no physical damage to the property like graffiti - so even if the statue itself is private property, there is no charge of vandalism.

In your hypothetical, it'd be like if you make a memorial statue of your mother and put it in public park - there, every kid is free to take pictures simulating sex with your mother and there is nothing you can do about it. On the other hand, if the statue is on private property, then a sign "trespassers will be prosecuted" should keep those kids away.

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.

It isn't. The crime here is "offending sensibilities" which is in no way more meaningful or tangible than government oppression. You want to make it more meaningful, which is why you are bringing up hypotheticals like "potential to incite violence", "potential intimidation", "violation of property rights" and so on - but none of them are applicable here.