Implied BJ on Jesus, atheists support teen.

[JesusHChrist]

The original intent of some of these "Venerated object" laws was to prohibit flag burning.

From what I can tell, those cases have been thrown out on the basis of flag burning being protected free speech.

Very unlikely these charges will stick. Then, I hope he sues the DA/county/city for malicious prosecution, false imprisonment and false arrest.

He wasn't charged with trespassing as the area is "generally open to the public". Trespassing would only apply if an agent of the church asked him to leave and he did not. So, none of that applies either.

[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.

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

The kid is guilty of desecrating someone else's private property. That's clear from the picture. The people who erected the statue....who presumably once found inspiration from it may now only think of that desecration instead when they view it.....so in a real sense the property owners have been damaged by being deprived of the inspiration they once had.

What right does the kid have to do what he did? Free speech doesn't apply here because free speech doesn't give you the right to use someone else's property to make a point. If I used an image of Micky and Minnie Mouse hot boxing to promote the legalization of marijuana, Disney would have a cause of action against me.

I still think it silly to prosecute this as a criminal manner, but if the owners of the statue wanted to take the kid to court....I don't have a problem with that. The state should uphold the property rights of property owners.

[Bibliofagus]

Disney owns the copyright as well as personality rights (not sure if this is the correct term in english) on Mickey...

[vorlon13]

Is 'disrespecting' an idol really a prohibited act ????????


Think about it.


Seems like any doubt in the theology would equate with an acquittal.

[JesusHChrist]

The only action Disney would have, would be on the basis of copyright infringement, not "desecration" of a venerated cartoon.

By your logic, if one day I come out of the gym, and a guy is dry humping the back of my Mazda, he has committed a crime. I will never look at the trunk of my Mazda the same way again.

The unspoken implication here seems to be, "But it's Jeeesus! And he's a special little snowflake of a statue!"

No he ain't.

And ain't nobody got no copyright on Jesus. Not even the Catholics, much as they might like to.

[Michael Schubert]

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyath...us-statue/

The teen should not face desecration charges. Instead, he should only face trespassing charges because he did that on someone else's private property.

[vorlon13]

JHC said: "I will never look at the trunk of my Mazda the same way again."


Like it's a good thing or a bad thing ???

[JesusHChrist]

The teen should not face desecration charges. Instead, he should only face trespassing charges because he did that on someone else's private property.

Trespass only applies to areas not generally open to the public (like the inside of your fenced yard, OR areas that are generally open, and you've been asked to leave by agent of the owner. That's why you aren't trespassing when you enter any store's property. Unfenced lawns outside a church seem to be wide open to public access.

In any case, the church is not pursuing charges -- just the DA. He's trying to set the community straight on what their morals ought to be, according to him.

[vorlon13]

Does the prosecutor have evidence the teen was aroused, and how could he procure such evidence without becoming a registered sex offender ??

[Heywood]

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyath...us-statue/

The teen should not face desecration charges. Instead, he should only face trespassing charges because he did that on someone else's private property.

I doubt the property owners had no trespassing signs up or was told by the property owners to leave....generally you can't be prosecuted for being on someone else's property....you have to be told you can't be there first.