Teen Could Get Two Years for Facebook Photos with Jesus Statue

H

HardOCP News

[H] News
Joined
Dec 31, 1969
Messages
0
Take pictures of yourself having simulated sex with a statue of Jesus. Check. Post pictures to Facebook. Check. Now facing 2 years in juvenile detention. Check mate.

Pennsylvania law defines desecration as “Defacing, damaging, polluting or otherwise, physically mistreating in a way that the actor knows will outrage the sensibilities of persons likely to observe or discover the action.” The teen, whose name has not been released, could face up to two years in a juvenile jail if convicted.
Click to expand...
 
only in Pennsylvania.

As immature this was, I don't see it as permanently damaging the statue in question and IMO, borderline First Amendment issues (after all, he had someone take a photograph).
 
At first, I thought that was outrageous because - free speech - but this is private property. If you want to do that, go do it with your own Jesus statue on your own property.

To my surprise, I think I might agree with this outcome.
 
Bad taste? Sure. Criminal? No way. At most - trespassing.

So, if someone does a sexual pose with Ronald McDonald in that town, it could be criminal as well? Damn... I should probably take down a few of my photos from the internet. If I don't get it in time, it was nice knowing you all. I'll say hi to TheBuzzer while I'm in the big house.
 
He didn't deface, damage, etc, anything. He pantomimed and photographed. Mily Cyrus's twerk was more criminal than this. Should get thrown out of court, dismissed with prejudice.
 
So how did they know the "actor" didn't approve of this?
 
MoFoQ said:
only in Pennsylvania.

As immature this was, I don't see it as permanently damaging the statue in question and IMO, borderline First Amendment issues (after all, he had someone take a photograph).
Click to expand...

To be clear, he's not being punished because it's illegal to do that to a religious statue - that would be a free speech issue.

He's being punished because it's illegal to do that to a religious statue that other people own because it was done "in a way that the actor knows will outrage the sensibilities".

Wiki has a good definition of desecration:
Desecration (also called desacralization or desanctification) is the act of depriving something of its sacred character, or the disrespectful, contemptuous, or destructive treatment of that which is held to be sacred or holy by a group or individual.

This is America - you can stil do creepy, sacrilegious things to statues, you just have to do them to your own statues.
 
If he gets any time, or any punishment, that's ridiculous. At best he can now be asked not to step foot on their property and that any further contact will be considered harassment/trespassing.

What a joke and waste of their tax dollars.
 
DoubleTap said:
This is America - you can stil do creepy, sacrilegious things to statues, you just have to do them to your own statues.
Click to expand...

Hmmm.... Even has a sheep.

http://www.amazon.com/Jesus-Good-Sh...8&qid=1410556444&sr=1-2&keywords=jesus+statue

Sure it'd piss them off, but (I am NOT a lawyer, nor do I know the law, don't call me an armchair lawyer or any BS like that - I'm just throwing this out there) why not criminal trespass or trespass or whatever?

No damage was done. It was pissed off those that saw it because it was their statue and hurt their feelings over their religion. Kind of a shit thing to do, but teenagers do stupid shit all the time (I did). This isn't that big of a deal (not my church or religion, though, but it sounds more like an emotional law rather than a sensible one).
 
As an Amazon Associate, HardForum may earn from qualifying purchases.
DoubleTap said:
To be clear, he's not being punished because it's illegal to do that to a religious statue - that would be a free speech issue.

He's being punished because it's illegal to do that to a religious statue that other people own because it was done "in a way that the actor knows will outrage the sensibilities".

Wiki has a good definition of desecration:
Desecration (also called desacralization or desanctification) is the act of depriving something of its sacred character, or the disrespectful, contemptuous, or destructive treatment of that which is held to be sacred or holy by a group or individual.

This is America - you can stil do creepy, sacrilegious things to statues, you just have to do them to your own statues.
Click to expand...

Exactly. You can paint swastikas all over your own house, but if you paint them on a Jewish temple, you're in trouble. That's the idea. Personally, I agree with charging him. He won't get two years for it unless he already has an extensive juvenile record.
 
What most of you are missing is that the law does not only address mechanical acts such as trespassing which is simply being somewhere where you do not have a right to be.

The law also addresses crimes by intent and by how they are calculated to impact the victim.

If someone smeared bacon grease on their feet and walked around my property, it would probably be trespassing at worst (unless they actually gave me some bacon, then no harm, no foul)

But if I were a Jew or a Muslim and they intentionally smeared bacon grease on their shoes and went trudging around my Temple or Mosque, then it's not simply a mopping problem, it's a serious desecration and might even render the site unusable for worship.

People don't revile the KKK because burning crosses on lawns is a fire hazard or because they wear white after Labor Day. They didn't send the Fire Marshall and Fashion Police after them, they sent the FBI because they were putting people in fear and performing acts designed to intimidate and suppress specific groups of people.
 
Painting swasticas leaves a lasting mark. This guy took a picture. I've flipped off Touchdown Jesus in 2004 and took a picture, guess its a good thing Notre Dame's campus isn't in Pennsylvania? The line must be drawn... not here.
 
Meh. The real punishment is showing his immaturity.....wait, that never does anything to people like this. I say throw the book at him. :D
 
EODetroit said:
He didn't deface, damage, etc, anything. He pantomimed and photographed. Mily Cyrus's twerk was more criminal than this. Should get thrown out of court, dismissed with prejudice.
Click to expand...

I think these are the operative words and "in any way" has a lot of flexibility built in.

physically mistreating in a way that the actor knows will outrage the sensibilities of persons likely to observe or discover the action.”
Click to expand...

Still, I think a lot would depend on who was given access to his facebook page. If it is private and controlled then no way, but if not and it's tagged so a web search would pull it up, then perhaps the State has a case.
 
retarded puritans still living in PA?

I think this is characterized as freedom of speech, classified under comedy.
 
And it's not as if the media hasn't done its part by telling everyone the city, the name of the religious institution, and then showing the picture to anyone that cares.

One might almost think the real actor here is the media and not the kid...
 
DoubleTap said:
What most of you are missing is that the law does not only address mechanical acts such as trespassing which is simply being somewhere where you do not have a right to be.

The law also addresses crimes by intent and by how they are calculated to impact the victim.

If someone smeared bacon grease on their feet and walked around my property, it would probably be trespassing at worst (unless they actually gave me some bacon, then no harm, no foul)

But if I were a Jew or a Muslim and they intentionally smeared bacon grease on their shoes and went trudging around my Temple or Mosque, then it's not simply a mopping problem, it's a serious desecration and might even render the site unusable for worship.

People don't revile the KKK because burning crosses on lawns is a fire hazard or because they wear white after Labor Day. They didn't send the Fire Marshall and Fashion Police after them, they sent the FBI because they were putting people in fear and performing acts designed to intimidate and suppress specific groups of people.
Click to expand...

You mention intent. Was he intending to screw with the tenants of the church, or just trying to be funny for his and his friends amusement? He probably didn't want the church to see. They just happened to get a hold of the picture.

KKK wants to put fear into the people. Smearing bacon grease on a Jewish temple is still destruction of property and is trying to piss off the people.

This kid had no ill intentions, other than poor comedy.
 
What Would Jesus Do?


He would forgive, that's what he would do.

And no, I'm not Christian
 
Jesus Lawd Have Mercy!

"Where was jesus when I was getting stabbed with a coat hanger"
- french kid from South Park the Movie
 
Maybe... kid needs a bit of Jesus in his life?

No, I am not Christian either.
 
Take a good long hard look at the future of this country, because this is representative of the future leaders of this country. :(

Defending this is akin to defending someone taking a dump and wiping their ass with Old Glory. :mad: Far more of us hold both dear to our hearts than you may care to believe.

Is it criminal? Last I checked, lewd public behavior was a crime.

I think his punishment should be to have to do that publicly to a statue of Mohammad.
I wonder how the so called "religion of peace" would react to that. I wonder if they'd think that was criminal...oh wait...no I don't. I'm quite certain he'd be the recipient of a swift and merciless beheading. :eek:
 
The weird thing here is he didn't actually do anything. His pants were on Zipper closed. Maybe he was pretending he was riding a bull?

Only in PA! A Fooked up state to be sure. And trespassing I doubt would stand either. He didn't damage anything, and I'll bet there is no signs saying "No Tresspassing" for the front street area.

Now if he was naked with a woody, I could see all kind of issues
 
EODetroit said:
He didn't deface, damage, etc, anything. He pantomimed and photographed. Mily Cyrus's twerk was more criminal than this. Should get thrown out of court, dismissed with prejudice.
Click to expand...

Someone likely complained and thus:

....physically mistreating in a way that the actor knows will outrage the sensibilities of persons likely to observe or discover the action..
Click to expand...
 
This is some BS, and should be covered under the first amendment.

How is this any different from posting pictures of Mohammad?

Glad PA takes the side of the terrorists.
 
And for the record, at least the last time I checked, you can't hold public office in Texas unless you confess you believe in God. No Atheists allowed.

Its never been upheld, but its clearly an unconstitutional law. We have LOTS of old unconstitutional laws that somehow were creeped into the books here and there now and then, time to do "the purge".
 
Ducman69 said:
And for the record, at least the last time I checked, you can't hold public office in Texas unless you confess you believe in God. No Atheists allowed.
Click to expand...
The upside is that an atheist would have no moral issues about lying that they believed in God ... and since they're going for public office might as well start off the lying with a good one :)
 
sfsuphysics said:
The upside is that an atheist would have no moral issues about lying that they believed in God ... and since they're going for public office might as well start off the lying with a good one :)
Click to expand...

Wouldn't that make the guy or gal agnostic?
 
mynamehere said:
Take a good long hard look at the future of this country, because this is representative of the future leaders of this country. :(

Defending this is akin to defending someone taking a dump and wiping their ass with Old Glory. :mad: Far more of us hold both dear to our hearts than you may care to believe.

Is it criminal? Last I checked, lewd public behavior was a crime.

I think his punishment should be to have to do that publicly to a statue of Mohammad.
I wonder how the so called "religion of peace" would react to that. I wonder if they'd think that was criminal...oh wait...no I don't. I'm quite certain he'd be the recipient of a swift and merciless beheading. :eek:
Click to expand...

Not really. It is an inanimate statue and nothing more. He wasn't naked so it isn't lewd public behavior in the least. Tasteless sure, criminal no.

I would say more but your last paragraph pretty much says how much trying to reason with you will accomplish. It's amazing how the "minority" asshats in one religion represent the entire thing in the eyes of the other religion that somehow their minority of asshats don't represent them. Hypocrisy Is FUN!
 
Dekoth-E- said:
Not really. It is an inanimate statue and nothing more. He wasn't naked so it isn't lewd public behavior in the least. Tasteless sure, criminal no.

I would say more but your last paragraph pretty much says how much trying to reason with you will accomplish. It's amazing how the "minority" asshats in one religion represent the entire thing in the eyes of the other religion that somehow their minority of asshats don't represent them. Hypocrisy Is FUN!
Click to expand...

You're misunderstanding lewd behavior in PA. There's a difference between open lewdness and indecent exposure. This clearly falls under lewd behavior in PA.
 
If no damage was done to the statue, and the kid didn't ignore any specific request from the owner, there's nothing to convict him of imo. The only desecration he caused is inside the pea brains of whoever filed this charge, and that right (to portray religious icons and other bullshit as such) is protected free speech in our country.
 
If someone were on my porch dry humping my gargoyles, or in my back garden having simulated sex with that garden gnome, (I still don't know where that thing came from), I would want them to get a bit of a legal slapping. Maybe not 2 years in juvi, but a bit of community service, and a year or two of probation would be reasonable.
 
Should just be trespassing, and maybe lewd conduct.

Although since it involves someone under 18 pictured in a simulated sex act, I suppose he and the person taking the picture could be charged with producing child pornography.
 
if he didn't really have is zipper opened and just "posed" for the picture.....a bit of a stretch for "lew conduct" especially if Miley Cyrus twerking is not charged with the same thing (shoot, it's more graphic that this kid).

Either way, two years....that's so ludicrous, it's gone plaid.
Hopefully, the judge is not lacking in the brains department and gives him community service washing and cleaning that statue.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top