Teen facing 2 years for photo with statue

[EVT1]

I can't believe they actually charged the kid with this particular crime- not even close to what it was intended for:

     The teen, from Everett, Pennsylvania, hopped on top of a statue of a kneeling Jesus—in front of an organization called "Love in the Name of Christ"—and simulated oral sex with the statue's face. Naturally, he posted the pictures to Facebook, which made their way to authorities.

     Officials in Bedford County charged the teen (whose name hasn't been released) with desecration of a venerated object, invoking a 1972 Pennsylvania statute that criminalizes "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." You'd think an appropriate punishment for a kid violating this seldom-invoked law might be picking up trash or, at worst, paying a fine. If convicted, he faces much worse: two years in juvenile detention.

www.motherjones.com/mojo/2014/09/pennsylvania-teenager-hump-oral-sex-jesus-statue-prison

It could have been a lot worse- but this is a criminal now?

[djAdvocate]

this is a 1st amendment violation, imo.

[tallguy]

Rather than charge him I'd prefer someone just kick the sh** out of him for being an idiot. 

[Shooby]

Yes. It is rude. But, not jail worthy. Well, maybe in the Middle East you might get your head lopped off by the "religion of Peace".

[Shooby]

Teenage boy is synonomous with Stupid, unthinking human being.

[EVT1]

Sept 14, 2014 12:05:15 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

this is a 1st amendment violation, imo.

Yep- I could see a charge for vandalism if damaged, but just a quick photo?

This is supposed to be what separates us from the religious fanatics that would have thrown him in jail, ( ), I mean what separates us from the religious fanatics that would have beheaded him for it.

I think our religious fanatics and theirs only differ in degree- and both want the force of law on their side.  Not a good idea.

[Malarky]

In poor taste?  Yes.

The epitome of teenaged stupidity?  Yes.

Worthy of jail time? No.

FFS. 

[Deleted]

I don't know if some of you realise how deeply offensive those pictures are to some of us. I am actually having a physical reaction to the offense. And I don't feel really strongly about these things. He needs consequences.  In Canada "up to 2 years" is served in jail, not prison. I think he should have a suspended sentance and the next stunt gets him jail time.

[mmhmm]

I think I might be tempted to find a lot of dirty little jobs that need doing around town ... like cleaning all the statues and storefronts with a toothbrush.

[Angel!]

Sept 14, 2014 16:04:05 GMT -5 laterbloomer said:

I don't know if some of you realise how deeply offensive those pictures are to some of us.

If we are going to let westboro sit outside funerals with their signs, then I'm thinking offensive does not equal illegal.

I don't care how offensive it is, I don't think it is worthy of jail. 

[Deleted]

Sept 14, 2014 16:32:00 GMT -5 Angel! said:

Sept 14, 2014 16:04:05 GMT -5 laterbloomer said:

I don't know if some of you realise how deeply offensive those pictures are to some of us.

If we are going to let westboro sit outside funerals with their signs, then I'm thinking offensive does not equal illegal.

I don't care how offensive it is, I don't think it is worthy of jail. 

Spray painting hateful speech on religious buildings is a crime. This is more comparable to that than the people outside funeral homes. Taking the picture and posting it is a more permanent defacement. And the people outside funeral homes are kept a certain distance and have limitations on what they can do.

[Deleted]

I don't really know much about the westboro folks and I'm not interested in defending them. If they are getting away with the same thing they should be stopped as well. Not use them as an excuse to let others do it.

I'm pretty sure the statue of Jesus wasn't on public property. At the least it was property owned by the church. He defaced it.

[Deleted]

There is no grey area, church property is private property. Anyway, the problem was not his being on the property, it was defacing it. Since you want to nitpick the word, this is from the law he is being charged under "mistreating in a way that the actor knows will outrage the sensibilities of persons likely to observe or discover the action". Not only did he know it would outrage them, he wanted to.

[swamp]

Offensive doesn't mean illegal. He has a right to be an idiot. 

[Deleted]

Sept 14, 2014 16:04:05 GMT -5 laterbloomer said:

I don't know if some of you realise how deeply offensive those pictures are to some of us. I am actually having a physical reaction to the offense. And I don't feel really strongly about these things. He needs consequences.  In Canada "up to 2 years" is served in jail, not prison. I think he should have a suspended sentance and the next stunt gets him jail time.

In the US, citizens have the right to be offensive... so long as they don't cause damage, or physically alter anything that's not their property. It's part of the whole "free speech" thing in the First Amendment.

[Deleted]

Sept 14, 2014 19:57:18 GMT -5 laterbloomer said:

There is no grey area, church property is private property. Anyway, the problem was not his being on the property, it was defacing it. Since you want to nitpick the word, this is from the law he is being charged under "mistreating in a way that the actor knows will outrage the sensibilities of persons likely to observe or discover the action". Not only did he know it would outrage them, he wanted to.

Church property is actually "publicly accessible property that's privately owned". Here the important part is "publicly accessible". He's part of the public, he had legal access to it (unless they can prove that he was previously barred from accessing it... like there was a trespass warrant out on him for that property, or a "Devout Christians only!" sign, or something).

[Deleted]

They aren't charging him for trespassing. And free speech is not absolute.

[Deleted]

Sept 14, 2014 21:32:48 GMT -5 laterbloomer said:

They aren't charging him for trespassing. And free speech is not absolute.

You'r right. It isn't. When it can cause panic or injury it's restricted... other than that.. it pretty much IS absolute. "do others like it?" is not question that people are required to consider when deciding to avail themselves of their right to "freedom of speech".

[Deleted]

You guys will have to let me know how this case turns out. The statue is private property and he mistreated it in a way designed to outrage the sensibilities of those that own it. Which is what he is charged with.

[busymom]

Whether he posted these poses in front of a religious statue, or did the same poses in front of, let's say for example, a small child, either way I find what this kid did offensive.  I'm actually surprised there isn't some penalty for public display of an implied sexual act, or something along those lines.

[mmhmm]

I don't think it's an offense to go to jail for; however, I'd hope the parents of this kid will step up to the plate. If he were mine, he'd be assigned for 6 months as personal janitor, step-and-fetch-it, gardener and general handyman for that church.

[djAdvocate]

Sept 14, 2014 16:04:05 GMT -5 laterbloomer said:

I don't know if some of you realise how deeply offensive those pictures are to some of us. I am actually having a physical reaction to the offense. And I don't feel really strongly about these things. He needs consequences.  In Canada "up to 2 years" is served in jail, not prison. I think he should have a suspended sentance and the next stunt gets him jail time.

i find Mitt Romney flipping pancakes in a $5,000 suit offensive.  but i don't think he should be prevented from doing it.

if we are no longer even responsible for our own feelings, we might as well run the bill of rights through a paper shredder.

[djAdvocate]

Sept 14, 2014 21:32:48 GMT -5 laterbloomer said:

They aren't charging him for trespassing. And free speech is not absolute.

so long as it doesn't injure people or harm property, it is.

Stalin believed in freedom of speech, for people he agreed with.
the measure of free speech is how we deal with speech we disagree with.
if we don't believe in that, we don't really believe in free speech.

[djAdvocate]

Sept 14, 2014 22:03:08 GMT -5 busymom said:

Whether he posted these poses in front of a religious statue, or did the same poses in front of, let's say for example, a small child, 

totally different.  a small child is not capable of consent, and is subject to protection from the state against sexual misconduct on the part of adults.  a statue is not.

either way I find what this kid did offensive.  I'm actually surprised there isn't some penalty for public display of an implied sexual act, or something along those lines.

with a statue?  no.  there is no such penalty.  nor should there be.  if you want to have an affair with the garden tool or other inanimate object of your choice, there is no way in hell that the state should have any say in that decision.

[Deleted]

We absolutely must protect freedom of speech for even things we find completely disgusting.

To be honest, had my friends and I come across a statue like that back in college while drunk it would have been impossible to resist doing exactly what that kid did. It wouldn't have been done to insult, but because someone was dumb enough to make a statue that looks like it's ready to get tea bagged and we would have found it extremely funny.

I agree it is stupid and he shouldn't have done it but come on, facing two freakin years and a record? Let his parents handle it and move on.

[ՏՇԾԵԵʅՏɧ_LԹՏՏʅҼ]

To be honest, had my friends and I come across a statue like that back in college while drunk it would have been impossible to resist doing exactly what that kid did. It wouldn't have been done to insult, but because someone was dumb enough to make a statue that looks like it's ready to get tea bagged and we would have found it extremely funny.

And if a person is already old enough to be in college, they are old enough to have some sensibility and know the difference between right & wrong - and not act out like a moron - just to "impress" his friends as the college clown & get a few laughs from his peers

It's ignorant, and completely disrespectful - that young man should be given a year of community service - even if it's doing grounds keeping for the church, picking up trash in a public park, or cleaning public restrooms.

People get outraged when other statues or symbols are desecrated or vandalized in any way. How is this any different? It's a complete lack of respect (not much different than someone burning the flag or spray painting over gravestones, etc.

I wonder how this young man would feel if someone tipped the headstone of a family member - or pee'd on it?

[Deleted]

Sept 15, 2014 1:22:33 GMT -5 ՏՇԾԵԵʅՏɧ_LԹՏՏʅҼ said:

To be honest, had my friends and I come across a statue like that back in college while drunk it would have been impossible to resist doing exactly what that kid did. It wouldn't have been done to insult, but because someone was dumb enough to make a statue that looks like it's ready to get tea bagged and we would have found it extremely funny.

And if a person is already old enough to be in college, they are old enough to have some sensibility and know the difference between right & wrong - and not act out like a moron - just to "impress" his friends as the college clown & get a few laughs from his peers

It's ignorant, and completely disrespectful - that young man should be given a year of community service - even if it's doing grounds keeping for the church, picking up trash in a public park, or cleaning public restrooms.

People get outraged when other statues or symbols are desecrated or vandalized in any way. How is this any different? It's a complete lack of respect (not much different than someone burning the flag or spray painting over gravestones, etc.

I wonder how this young man would feel if someone tipped the headstone of a family member - or pee'd on it?

The italicized/underlined is irrelevant. This guy didn't tip the Jesus statue over or pee on it. He took a picture with it.

[Deleted]

[quote author="ՏՇԾԵԵʅՏɧ_LԹՏՏʅҼ" How is this any different? [/b][/font][/quote]

He didn't physically vandalize the statue. In my opinion it makes it completely different.

[marvholly]

I DO think what the kid did was WRONG and I am not a christian. However, I do NOT think it worthy of jail time, esp at his age. It should be reclassified as a misdemeanor (so no fleony record) and punished w/ a BUNCH of hours of community service.

[Tennesseer]

Think not once, not twice, but three times or more before you upload your pictures to Facebook or your videos to Youtube.  They just may bite your ass for forever.