UPDATE:Pennsylvania Teenager Simulates Oral Sex With Jesus Statue

[shira]

But it does exist. And he did commit a crime.

If the part of the law he's being charged under is determined to be unconstitutional, then he hasn't committed a crime under THAT law. Under other laws, maybe, but "physically disrespecting" (without causing damage) a venerated object is in and of itself clearly protected speech.

 

[Jaskalas]

Life in prison I say. It's time we sent the Liberals a message that their war on Christianity must stop.

Life in prison is a just reward, for any prosecutor who touches this.

 

[Atomic Playboy]

A teenager doing something stupid and offensive? Better throw the book at him; we wouldn't want every other teenager to do something stupid and offensive too.

Dammit, we're too late!

 

[Sunburn74]

The law sounds unconstitutional. The action itself is not criminal (many a stand-up comedian's act involves simulation of oral sex with some object, usually a microphone) and caused no physical damage to the item. It may be offensive, but actions such as his as protected as part of free speech.

There is no crime here and if you don't want your public statue desecrated by the public in such fashion, then move it to a private locale. There is no expectation that the same veneration you give a public statue should apply to everyone (whats venerable to one person is laughable to other: ie imagine if there was a church of scientology statue at your local park)

 

[Babbles]

Good thing we don't allow Sharia law in God's country, where we love freedom and expression . . .

 

[bradley]

This teenager's punishment should be for someone to dry hump his parent's lawn furniture.

I also want Jesus arrested for sodomizing a minor.

 

[piasabird]

Just Castrate Him. That is fair.

 

[piasabird]

It was probably private property. If you are belonging to a faith based organization this would be considered hate speech. This is similar to burning a cross on the lawn of a black man. The young man singled out a religious organization.

 

[shira]

It was probably private property. If you are belonging to a faith based organization this would be considered hate speech. This is similar to burning a cross on the lawn of a black man. The young man singled out a religious organization.

I don't think so. Hate-speech statutes don't outlaw otherwise legal speech. They merely intensify the punishment for speech illegal under other statutes.

For example, spray-painting a benign message ("I love Suzy") on the walls of a synagogue would be vandalism, and would probably result in not-too-severe punishment for a first-time offense. But spray-painting a threatening, anti-Jewish message on the walls of a synagogue would be hate speech, and the punishment would be more severs.

 

[werepossum]

A teenager doing something stupid and offensive? Better throw the book at him; we wouldn't want every other teenager to do something stupid and offensive too.

Dammit, we're too late!

It was probably private property. If you are belonging to a faith based organization this would be considered hate speech. This is similar to burning a cross on the lawn of a black man. The young man singled out a religious organization.

That is a good point. Personally I'm just thankful that the left isn't demanding that we subsidize his Christ-humping as with Piss Christ.

I say give him 200 hours of community service, just to set aside 200 hours where he (hopefully) won't be doing anything stupid that might harm himself or others.

Full disclosure, I once did this exact thing with a statute of a university founder or president. (Honestly I don't think we even knew who he was, but I'm reasonably sure he wasn't Jesus. Aryan Jesus maybe, but certainly not Jewish Jesus.) That however is completely different because:
1. It was me.
2. It was hilarious.
3. It involved climbing up about twelve feet and humping a bronze statue's head while making rodeo rider motions. (Hey, I'm the one at risk, therefore I'm the victim.)
4. Zuckerberg had not yet been born.
5. I made damned sure nobody was carrying a camera.

 

[AyashiKaibutsu]

That is a good point. Personally I'm just thankful that the left isn't demanding that we subsidize his Christ-humping as with Piss Christ.

I say give him 200 hours of community service, just to set aside 200 hours where he (hopefully) won't be doing anything stupid that might harm himself or others.

Full disclosure, I once did this exact thing with a statute of a university founder or president. (Honestly I don't think we even knew who he was, but I'm reasonably sure he wasn't Jesus. Aryan Jesus maybe, but certainly not Jewish Jesus.) That however is completely different because:
1. It was me.
2. It was hilarious.
3. It involved climbing up about twelve feet and humping a bronze statue's head while making rodeo rider motions. (Hey, I'm the one at risk, therefore I'm the victim.)
4. Zuckerberg had not yet been born.
5. I made damned sure nobody was carrying a camera.

There's no statue of limitations for being offensive. CIA are on their way with the water-boards.

This sounds like something that might bite PA in the ass when it all gets sorted out in court...

 

[John Connor]

Wouldn't expect anything less from religious zealots.

Jesus was a fictional character . get the fuck over it.

Apparently you don't know your biblical archeological history. Get the fuck over it!

 

[Moonbeam]

Anybody who venerates an object should get 2 years in prison.

 

[WelshBloke]

I'm presuming that the people who want him punished also want people who burn the flag punished, or people who deface the Koran, or people who draw pictures of Muhammad...

 

[Bitek]

I'm presuming that the people who want him punished also want people who burn the flag punished, or people who deface the Koran, or people who draw pictures of Muhammad...

Perhaps we also need an "Everybody Hump a Jesus Statue Day"

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Everybody_Draw_Mohammed_Day

 

[Londo_Jowo]

I'm presuming that the people who want him punished also want people who burn the flag punished, or people who deface the Koran, or people who draw pictures of Muhammad...

Big difference when you do these things in publicly owned places or on your own property, doing so on property owned by someone else is not protected by the the 1st amendment.

I support protection of peoples right to burn the flag, deface the Koran, or draw pictures of Muhammad provided they do not violate the rights of others when they do so.

 

[John Connor]

When I was riding my bike back from Walmart I would pass through a church parking lot. Well one day a cop stops me and asks for my ID and I said what did I do wrong? And he responds by saying I was trespassing.

 

[SlowSpyder]

What do you think would happen to a kid that violated a Muslim religious icon in Afghanistan?:hmm:

The kid would probably be arrested and punished. Kind of like what appears to be happening here. Just because the punishment might be more civilized here, don't kid yourself that both scenarios aren't equally anti-freedom.


The teen did something that wasn't in good taste. But shouldn't be a legal issue at all in my opinion.

 

[WelshBloke]

Big difference when you do these things in publicly owned places or on your own property, doing so on property owned by someone else is not protected by the the 1st amendment.

But look at what the guys getting charged with, it's nothing to do with it being private property and everything to do with being a "venerated object".

 

[Jaskalas]

But look at what the guys getting charged with, it's nothing to do with it being private property and everything to do with being a "venerated object".

I'm all in favor of the ACLU kicking their ass and the teen becoming a millionaire for compensation.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

But look at what the guys getting charged with, it's nothing to do with it being private property and everything to do with being a "venerated object".

He's being charged with a law that's on the books. I think he lost his 1st amendment right to do what he did when it occurred on private property and violated the owners of the properties rights.

 

[WelshBloke]

He's being charged with a law that's on the books.

One that would cover those other things I mentioned earlier?

I think he lost his 1st amendment right to do what he did when it occurred on private property and violated the owners of the properties rights.

Whether it did or not doesn't negate the law being stupid. The fact that you need a defence so as not to get charged for molesting a statue is the issue. If it was about it being on private land why didn't they just go for trespass?

 

[Londo_Jowo]

I have no clue why they chose one charge over the other. The fact it occurred on private property the kid was no longer protected by the 1st amendment and in fact he by doing what he did violated the property owners rights.

I still think he'll get a small fine and some community service out of this incident. Provided he doesn't violate any other laws by the time he hits 18 this incident would disappear.

 

[norseamd]

You are not trespassing if there is no keep out sign or the owner does not tell you to leave his premises.

 

[BoberFett]

This is true. But then he should have been indicted on a trespassing charge, not for showing physical disrespect to a statue.

Agreed.