Implied BJ on Jesus, atheists support teen.

[vorlon13]

Where would a teen get the idea Jesus might be amenable to dispensing a blow job ??

Maybe we should ask the GODDAMN Pope !!!!!!!!!!

[JesusHChrist]

Heywood, you are making things up as you go along. Do you think no one will notice?

Can you point out the law against "commandeering an object to be used as a free-speech prop"? According to most every legal interpretation, that which isn't expressly prohibited is legal.

There are laws against stealing or vandalism but no such law as you are attempting to invoke. The object of discussion was neither stolen nor vandalized. It remains exactly where it was, and in the same condition.

Point out such a law in the Pennsylvania legal code.

The law this kid was charged with violating is a thinly disguised blasphemy law.

I can't wait for this to reach the end game and this idiocy to be finished.

[Esquilax]

If desecrating a dead body by simulating "tea-bagging" is not protected under the constitution then desecrating a statue belonging to someone else by simulating a blow job is not protected either. You either have a constitutional right to commandeer props for your speech or you do not.

So you see no difference at all between the body of a human being and a statue?

And for some reason, you've decided that since you can see no difference between the two, that nobody else should be allowed to either? Hmm...

Now if the teen has no constitutional right to desecrate someone else's property(even if doing so causes no physical damage), then such actions can be criminalized.

Should that not be left up to the owners of the property itself? The ones that, last I checked, are not pressing charges? I mean, one would think that the functional definition of these crimes should include the input of the owners, or else that definition would encompass people acting even with the permission of the owners, which is literally the opposite of trespassing.

Additionally, the issue is about more than the simple act, it is also about the law in question, here: "Desecration of a venerated object." The argument goes that this is simply thinly veiled blasphemy laws, where the definition of what is venerated leans heavily in favor of, say, christian iconography over anything else. This is a conversation about the purpose and design of the law, something that your- I suspect disingenuous, but I have no way of knowing for sure- argument entirely ignores.

[Fidel_Castronaut]

In America, corpses are often put on display in a funeral home, not public display. Disturbing a body with a death requiring an inquest is a criminal act, and that includes any death where a physcician was not present. It's a health code violation, handling dead bodies safely requires training.

AND IT"S THE BODY OF AN ACTUAL PERSON YOU ETHICAL IDIOT! It's not 'venerated', it's loved by people in the midst of shock and grief and maybe outrage. I would have no sympathy for a cop shot dead while abusing a corpse, and I think a jury would let the shooter off lightly. That's because juries are mostly composed of people with normal sensibilities.

I'm not kidding when I say this, I intend it as serious advice that I hope you follow: you need to get professional help. There is something seriously wrong with you.

Mister Agenda....you are missing the point.

Others have claimed that prosecuting this teen is un-constitutional because the teen did not damage the property and has a right to free speech. I say they are wrong. The constitution protects free speech but it does not protect speech in which someone else's private property is commandeered and used as prop.

Citation?

I also need clarification on the word 'prop'? Statutes in the public realm are there to be looked at an engaged with; that's their sole purpose. If somebody leant on the statue, or took a photo with their arm around the statue, or indeed kissed the statue, I presume that would not warrant prosecution. Why then a kid putting his dick on/near it?

What if a guy was thrusting towards the statue without his genitals out? Would that count as being obscene and 'offending community sensibilities'? What about a woman rubbing her naked breast against it?

Or hell, what about a person just rubbing themselves against it suggestively?

The question that needs to be asked is, why this, specific statue? I'm willing to bet my bottom dollar that nobody would have objected if the statue in question was just a piece of abstract art.

If desecrating a dead body by simulating "tea-bagging" is not protected under the constitution then desecrating a statue belonging to someone else by simulating a blow job is not protected either. You either have a constitutional right to commandeer props for your speech or you do not.

I don't see how the hypothetical is related at all to the event in question.

[FatAndFaithless]

Fidel, Heywood has made it clear that he considers desecration of a human body (i.e. digging up someone's grandmother and fucking the body) to be on the same level outrage-wise as humping a statue of jesus. It's fuckin bizarre.

[JesusHChrist]

It's fuckin bizarre.

Just another example in a long line of examples of extremely twisted and tortured logic.

[Fidel_Castronaut]

Fidel, Heywood has made it clear that he considers desecration of a human body (i.e. digging up someone's grandmother and fucking the body) to be on the same level outrage-wise as humping a statue of jesus. It's fuckin bizarre.

It's an odd comparison to draw.

He may as well say "If someone breaks into your car and waves his dick around in it and pisses all over the seats, would you think that would warrant prosecution?"

[FatAndFaithless]

Fidel, Heywood has made it clear that he considers desecration of a human body (i.e. digging up someone's grandmother and fucking the body) to be on the same level outrage-wise as humping a statue of jesus. It's fuckin bizarre.

It's an odd comparison to draw.

He may as well say "If someone breaks into your car and waves his dick around in it and pisses all over the seats, would you think that would warrant prosecution?"

It's more than just odd, it's pretty revealing about the kind of moral compass he seems to have, if an inanimate object that wasn't harmed in any way is equal to the exhumed corpse of a human being that is being physically violated then...yikes!

[ShaMan]

When emphasis is placed upon the doing rather than the being who is doing, it forces love to take a back seat to roles, shadows, and fantasy. My most sincere hope is that this boy is shown grace, so that he may learn from his actions, and love willing, his prosecutors may also see the error of their ways.

[Thumpalumpacus]

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

I suspect the DA is up for re-election and is trying to sew up the whackjob vote.

Here's what Hemat has to say about the prosecutor:

Second, Bedford County District Attorney Bill Higgins, who’s trying to enforce the charge of second-degree misdemeanor against the kid, isn’t exactly an angel himself.
The same man who finds a gesture of a blowjob from Jesus obscene posted this on his Twitter account last month:

I always find this funny even though its old i always laugh. nick manning is a porn star who likes DROPPING LOADS.

That, if you can’t tell, is a conversation between Howard Stern and porn star Nick Manning in which they talk about Manning’s ejaculation habits.
That’s not all. Higgins posted this online a few days ago about the teenager:
“… this troubled young man offended the sensibilities and morals of OUR community. … His actions constitute a violation of the law, and he will be prosecuted accordingly. If that tends to upset the ‘anti-Christian, ban-school-prayer, war-on-Christmas, oppose-display-of-Ten-Commandments’ crowd, I make no apologies.”

For some reason, I guess Higgins didn’t think it would offend anyone’s sensibilities when he had an affair in his courtroom office several years ago:
His sexual encounter with the woman followed a committee meeting of Bedford County Republicans. Mr. Higgins was vice chairman of the county GOP at the time.
By his account, the woman drove to his office to meet him, and they had consensual sex.
…
The woman, though, now says Mr. Higgins sexually assaulted her the night of July 10. She filed a private criminal complaint against him…
Those charges were later dropped.
But, you know, it’s the kid who made an obscene gesture who’s the *real* problem in this community due to his his anti-Christian sentiments, not the guy who admitted to having an affair in his office and posted porn audio on Twitter.

Some Christian!

And to your point, he's up for re-election in 2015, so this could very well be lining up the looney-tunes vote.