Implied BJ on Jesus, atheists support teen.

[JesusHChrist]

There are better ways of expressing freedom of speech than rubbing your crotch on a statue's face. He wasn't trying to be deep and insightful. He was trying to tick people off. He succeeded.

You'll have to show me the section of law that requires freedom of speech to be deep and insightful. Ticking people off is a major point of free speech.

Danish cartoons, South Park, Doonesbury, Dilbert, George Carlin, Bible/Quran burning, Jesse Jackson, KKK marches...all offensive to somebody. Too damn bad.

The entire point is protection of *offensive* speech. If the speech wasn't offensive, it wouldn't need protection in the first place.

From the DA's comments, it is clear this is a Christian jihad against this young man. If it was a statue of Zeus or Venus, I doubt any charges would be brought.

In this country, at least for now, we don't allow charges to be brought for any sort of blasphemy. Now is not a good time to bring back those repulsive laws either.

[Minimalist]

Come on, USA, you're better than that!

No. We're not.

[FreeTony]

Would a statue of Richard Dawkins also count as a venerated object under the same law?

I'm sure it would be treated with utmost respect.

[Minimalist]

I'd give it due respect.... not sure if I'd worship it.

Unlike 'god' Dawkins has actually done something.

[Chad32]

There are better ways of expressing freedom of speech than rubbing your crotch on a statue's face. He wasn't trying to be deep and insightful. He was trying to tick people off. He succeeded.

You'll have to show me the section of law that requires freedom of speech to be deep and insightful. Ticking people off is a major point of free speech.

Danish cartoons, South Park, Doonesbury, Dilbert, George Carlin, Bible/Quran burning, Jesse Jackson, KKK marches...all offensive to somebody. Too damn bad.

The entire point is protection of *offensive* speech. If the speech wasn't offensive, it wouldn't need protection in the first place.

From the DA's comments, it is clear this is a Christian jihad against this young man. If it was a statue of Zeus or Venus, I doubt any charges would be brought.

In this country, at least for now, we don't allow charges to be brought for any sort of blasphemy. Now is not a good time to bring back those repulsive laws either.

I was not aware that the sole purpose of South Park was to be offensive. It's comical and thought provoking. Humping a Jesus statue in Jesus country isn't thought provoking.

There's saying controversial things, and there's trolling. He's a troll, and he got what he wanted.

[JesusHChrist]

I was not aware that the sole purpose of South Park was to be offensive. It's comical and thought provoking. Humping a Jesus statue in Jesus country isn't thought provoking.

There's saying controversial things, and there's trolling. He's a troll, and he got what he wanted.

Again, where is the section of law that requires free speech to not be solely, utterly and completely devoid of merit? South Park has been extremely offensive to just about everybody, but merit is not the criteria. Illegal behavior is.

Trolling isn't illegal either.

I think you are conflating something you don't like with bringing the full force of the government against a person. Thousands of dollars in court costs, possible jail time, a criminal record for something that isn't a crime.

You may not like it - I find Lady Gaga's "music" more offensive than this -- but that doesn't rise to the level where government should get involved.

[FreeTony]

I'd give it due respect.... not sure if I'd worship it.

Unlike 'god' Dawkins has actually done something.

I think anyone worshipping a statue (or indeed anything else) is a moron.

[Jaysyn]

There are better ways of expressing freedom of speech than rubbing your crotch on a statue's face. He wasn't trying to be deep and insightful. He was trying to tick people off. He succeeded.

So? Last time I checked we're still allowed to do that in the USA.

---

I was not aware that the sole purpose of South Park was to be offensive. It's comical and thought provoking.

I think Jesus blowjobs are hilarious, therefore you are wrong.

See why we can't go down this rabbit hole?

[Heywood]

I'd be curious to read the law that this kid alledgedly violated before making a firm judgement. Presumably the statue is private property and the state has an obligation to uphold the property rights of the owners. My first thoughts on this are that if it warrants prosecution it should be handled as a civil matter and not a criminal one.

[Jaysyn]

I'd be curious to read the law that this kid alledgedly violated before making a firm judgement. Presumably the statue is private property and the state has an obligation to uphold the property rights of the owners. My first thoughts on this are that if it warrants prosecution it should be handled as a civil matter and not a criminal one.

Clearly Unconstitutional & I don't think it will stand once the ACLU gets a hold of this DA. No idea why you'd think this would be a civil matter however. The only thing this kid is guilty of is trespassing, & not even that if they don't have No Trespassing signs visible.

Local media has reported that the teen is being charged under a 1972 statute that makes “desecration, theft or sale of a venerated object” a second-degree misdemeanor.

http://law.onecle.com/pennsylvania/crime...9.000.html

https://www.au.org/blogs/wall-of-separat...esecration