Implied BJ on Jesus, atheists support teen.

[FatAndFaithless]

The community could be offended all they want. Unless 'this white kid' damaged the statue or was inciting violence, they would not be legally allowed to prosecute him. Being offended =/= justification for prosecution. I think the kid face-humping the Jesus statue is pretty dumb and a bit childish, but guess what, laws aren't made on what offends people. Next you'll be calling for the prosecution of the Piss Christ artist..

If the statue was damaged then the crime is property damage. If they put a note on it saying "kill all blacks" that would be a crime regardless of damage.

No one gets to decide who can be offended and who cannot be offended. What everyone can agree on is that speech stops at acts of violence and calls to violence.

Well..yeah..that's what I said.

[Heywood]

The community could be offended all they want. Unless 'this white kid' damaged the statue or was inciting violence, they would not be legally allowed to prosecute him. Being offended =/= justification for prosecution. I think the kid face-humping the Jesus statue is pretty dumb and a bit childish, but guess what, laws aren't made on what offends people. Next you'll be calling for the prosecution of the Piss Christ artist..

There is a law on the books since 1973 and it hasn't been struck down. So at the moment they are legally allowed to prosecute the kid.

Does the Piss Christ artist commandeer the other peoples property? If he does then I would probably argue he could be subject to prosecution.

If the kid owned the statue....then yes I think a very good argument can be made that the kid has a first amendment right. But the kid didn't own the statue and Freedom of Speech doesn't give one the right to commandeer other peoples property to use a prop in ones speech. I have made this point several times in this thread. Nobody attempts to refute it....they simply ignore it and go on repeating his civil rights are being violated. Its like they are hoping that I find their repetitive assertion to be a compelling argument. I do not.

[FatAndFaithless]

The community could be offended all they want. Unless 'this white kid' damaged the statue or was inciting violence, they would not be legally allowed to prosecute him. Being offended =/= justification for prosecution. I think the kid face-humping the Jesus statue is pretty dumb and a bit childish, but guess what, laws aren't made on what offends people. Next you'll be calling for the prosecution of the Piss Christ artist..

There is a law on the books since 1973 and it hasn't been struck down. So at the moment they are legally allowed to prosecute the kid.

Does the Piss Christ artist commandeer the other peoples property? If he does then I would probably argue he could be subject to prosecution.

If the kid owned the statue....then yes I think a very good argument can be made that the kid has a first amendment right. But the kid didn't own the statue and Freedom of speech doesn't give one the right to commandeer other peoples property to use a prop in ones speech.

Hate to break it to you...just because a law's been around for a while doesn't mean it's consitutional or moral.

[Heywood]

There is a law on the books since 1973 and it hasn't been struck down. So at the moment they are legally allowed to prosecute the kid.

Does the Piss Christ artist commandeer the other peoples property? If he does then I would probably argue he could be subject to prosecution.

If the kid owned the statue....then yes I think a very good argument can be made that the kid has a first amendment right. But the kid didn't own the statue and Freedom of speech doesn't give one the right to commandeer other peoples property to use a prop in ones speech.

Hate to break it to you...just because a law's been around for a while doesn't mean it's consitutional or moral.

Hate to break it to you....but a law is the law until it is either repealed or stuck down.

[Fidel_Castronaut]

Stealing a war memorial plaque to sell the metal for scrap, losing the names of the guys who died in WWI from your local town, that's injustice. A statue of a non existent character getting a guy's dick in his face? If people get offended by that then they need to get over themselves.

What if it was a statue of Rosa Parks and the community was Ferguson? Would it be okay for that community to get offended if this white kid simulated a sex act with a statue of Rosa Parks in Ferguson?

What ifs don't negate the absurdity of the issue at hand.

And people can get offended all they want, but to legislate and, further, prosecute on legislation is utterly ridiculous. This DA was grandstanding and nothing more.

I'm sure rosa parks doesn't give a shit, and I'm sure jésus (if he ever existed) doesn't either. If people want to put their dicks on a statute its hurts nobody.

What's a community sensibility as well? Brakeman asked but you didn't answer.

[Mister Agenda]

Both a corpse and a statue are inanimate objects that people venerate. The fact that one is made of dead biological tissue and the other is made of paint and plaster is inconsequential.

If it helps you out, pretend the Jesus statue was carved from a tree....then the comparison would be inanimate object made from dead biological tissue with another inanimate object made from dead biological tissue.

I'd be interested in hearing how you suppose one would obtain said corpse without committing other crimes in the process.

Pretend you're skullfucking a Hitchens statue all you want and post as far and wide as you can; it's not a crime to be a douche.

[JesusHChrist]

Heywood, I'm disappointed in you.

You think just because a law is on the books it should be enforced? It used to be a law that one could chop off the foot of an escaped slave as just punishment. There are many unjust and unconstitutional laws. Fortunately, if this idiot DA takes it far enough, this law will almost certainly be struck down.

The "crime" was not using an object as an item of free speech. The crime was desecration of a venerated object. That's it. The statue was on private property BUT (and a major BUT), in a publicly accessible area.

For anything other than a Jesus statue, the only recourse the property owner would have is telling someone to knock it off and get off the property. If they don't, they could be cited for trespass. That set of laws is sufficient to handle these sorts of issues.

The law is inappropriately giving an elevated status to this *particular* object. Obviously, it is on the basis of being a religious object. That part is clearly unconstitutional.

The easy thought experiment you've yet to respond to: If the statue were of anything else: Jefferson, Darwin, Einstein, Mickey Mouse, would those count as "venerated" objects? You know they would not. Hence the law cannot be applied without taking the religious context of the statue and its location into account.

[Mister Agenda]

Ok, I'll pretend the facts are different...

Hey! You're right now!

I am right because if our constitution allows the law to protect corpses from desecration there is no substantial reason why it can't protect privately owned religious statues from desecration. The fact that the two inanimate objects are made of different things is immaterial.

The fact that one of those has to be stolen before you can desecrate it is very material.

---

Corpses are in no way treated the same as statues.

You can have sex with a statue, but not with a corpse.

Why are you avoiding a statue-to-statue comparison?

Well, a fair comparison doesn't lead to the desired conclusion.

[FatAndFaithless]

And...again apparently Heywood I'll be the one to tell you first..there are plenty of laws "on the books" that are considered irrelevant or immoral or antiquated and are not enforced.. The process of a formal repeal would be expensive and useless, as nobody is enforcing those laws anyway. Law on the books =/= it must be enforced.

[Mister Agenda]

How much respect you give something is a matter of personal choice.

True.

My thinking may or may not be religious but yours is clearly errant.

You think simulating sex with a statue out in public is equivalent to digging up or otherwise stealing a corpse to do the same thing is an equivalent comparison, and you think OUR thinking is in error? Yours is not only in error, it is sick. Sure, we don't want the bodies of our loved ones, or anyone else for that matter, desecrated. That's WHY we secure them from easy access by stupid 14-year-olds!

The question is not about how much respect you give inanimate objects.

Because if THAT was the question, you wouldn't have a leg to stand on, eh?

The question at hand is this: Does the constitution give one person the freedom to desecrate something belonging to another person.

'Desecrate' is defined as 'to treat a sacred place or thing with violent disrespect. Simulated sex is not violent disrespect, there was no damage to the statue, no one was hurt, it didn't even have to be cleaned off.

I think you realize it does not but just don't want to admit you are wrong.

I think you realize you're comparing apples and oranges (category error) but just don't want to admit you are wrong.

So you take this silly position that its not okay to desecrate a human body....but it is okay to desecrate a religious symbol that belongs to someone else.....cause thats not important to you.

You mean you project on to us that silly position, because you can't get us to object to a statue of Hitchens being fake-fellated, so you went to corpses instead; despite the obvious differences that you won't find a corpse propped up in a church's front yard, that there are serious health code violations involved with doing so, and the people who effectively own corpses go out of their way to prevent them being tampered with.

But I can easily imagine an exception to all of those objections, in an alternate reality where someone would actually want to do this in the USA and local authorities would allow it: a public outdoor display of the sort of rubberized body found in Bodies: The Exhibition; the sort of disrespect shown by this kid would be inappropriate to prosecute. The former and current owners of the body would be aware of this risk and chose to display anyway. I imagine some inappropriate photos have been taken with this exhibition already and no one chose to prosecute.