Teen facing 2 years for photo with statue

[ArchietheDragon]

Can you imagine the outrage from Pastafarians if some scalawag posted a picture with His Noodly Appendages's meaty balls in said scalawag's mouth?  

[djAdvocate]

Sept 15, 2014 12:25:14 GMT -5 Sum Dum Gai said:

I can't get my head around people supporting the state prosecuting a minor over "an act that offends the sensibilities".

this is precisely what i was getting at in my first post about Romney.  he did and said some stuff that i considered personally offensive.  however, as an ADULT, i am responsible for those feelings.  if i feel offended, i can either tell Mr. Romney that i am offended, or i can tell everyone else that i am offended, and leave it at that.  i do not, however, have the right to tell Mr. Romney to get a proper apron and t-shirt combination for the kitchen.  he has the right to spatter his expensive suit and potentially burn it, just as i do. 

i have never been much of an enthusiast for notions of "class". 

[djAdvocate]

Sept 15, 2014 13:37:02 GMT -5 ArchietheDragon said:

Can you imagine the outrage from Pastafarians if some scalawag posted a picture with His Noodly Appendages's meaty balls in said scalawag's mouth?  

a sure candidate for terrorist reprisal, there.

[djAdvocate]

Sept 15, 2014 12:25:53 GMT -5 Tennesseer said:

I have to wonder if the church leaves the statue out in the rain.  Do we get to charge Nature with a crime for eroding the statue?  

that, and a million other degradations of nature.  i am sure birds shit on it regular.

[ArchietheDragon]

Sept 15, 2014 13:40:25 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Sept 15, 2014 13:37:02 GMT -5 ArchietheDragon said:

Can you imagine the outrage from Pastafarians if some scalawag posted a picture with His Noodly Appendages's meaty balls in said scalawag's mouth?  

a sure candidate for terrorist reprisal, there.

I found one....   people are sick.

[djAdvocate]

Sept 15, 2014 13:47:40 GMT -5 ArchietheDragon said:

Sept 15, 2014 13:40:25 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

a sure candidate for terrorist reprisal, there.

I found one....   people are sick.

BLASPHEME!!!!  OFF WITH HIS HEAD!

[Deleted]

Look, I don't get on the bandwagon about "the attack on Christmas" or "keeping God in schools" or any range of far right "Christians are discriminated against" themes. Most of them I don't agree with. But the "desecration of venerated objects" is wrong no matter what faith it is done to. From a bit of my research a few of your states have these kinds of laws.

BTW is that a legit source? A couple of the quotes were really weird.

[Deleted]

And to pastafarians, that meatball is a venerable object. Where do you draw the line? 

Yes pa has the law. I will be protesting the law. It is 'little used', but should be scrubbed as far as I small concerned.

That or I go around making sure it's applied across the board. Oh how fun that will be...

[djAdvocate]

Sept 15, 2014 14:31:10 GMT -5 laterbloomer said:

Look, I don't get on the bandwagon about "the attack on Christmas" or "keeping God in schools" or any range of far right "Christians are discriminated against" themes. Most of them I don't agree with. But the "desecration of venerated objects" is wrong no matter what faith it is done to. From a bit of my research a few of your states have these kinds of laws.

BTW is that a legit source? A couple of the quotes were really weird.

what is a sacred object?

[Deleted]

Sept 15, 2014 13:27:20 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Sept 15, 2014 11:46:23 GMT -5 laterbloomer said:

The statue is used for the harassment of people of that faith. And the picture can't be fixed. It is out there.

i am a Christian, and i don't feel "harassed".  so, either we have a different meaning of that term, or you have it wrong.

Harassment (/həˈræsmənt/ or /ˈhærəsmənt/) covers a wide range of behaviours of an offensive nature. It is commonly understood as behaviour intended to disturb or upset, and it is characteristically repetitive. In the legal sense, it is intentional behaviour which is found threatening or disturbing.

This behaviour was intended to disturb and upset. The fact that it isn't habitual, as far as we know, is why I said suspended sentence so no punishment unless it happens again.

[djAdvocate]

Sept 15, 2014 14:39:37 GMT -5 Sum Dum Gai said:

Aren't cows still sacred to Hindus? Should everyone who's ever produced a McDonald's commercial spend a couple years in jail? We should probably lock up PETA too, for publishing photos of them being mistreated.

this is a slope that is so slippery that nobody can even stand on it, imo.

note to the board: i almost NEVER use that phrase- it is totally abused- but i think it totally applies here.

[Deleted]

Whether I find desecration of an object to be wrong, is not the guideline upon which such an act should be found illegal.

Not everything someone deems wrong is illegal. Thanks be to whatever venerable object you care to worship...

[Deleted]

Oh, the sacred cow... 

[justme]

Can an inanimate object be harassed? 

Maybe someone should start a blow up doll union. 

[Deleted]

Sept 15, 2014 14:40:59 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Sept 15, 2014 14:39:37 GMT -5 Sum Dum Gai said:

Aren't cows still sacred to Hindus? Should everyone who's ever produced a McDonald's commercial spend a couple years in jail? We should probably lock up PETA too, for publishing photos of them being mistreated.

this is a slope that is so slippery that nobody can even stand on it, imo.

note to the board: i almost NEVER use that phrase- it is totally abused- but i think it totally applies here.

Oh for Pete's sake, no it isn't. There is a purpose to MacDonald's other than upsetting Hindus. As well as PITA. The only intent of those pictures is disrespect.

[djAdvocate]

Sept 15, 2014 14:40:49 GMT -5 laterbloomer said:

Sept 15, 2014 13:27:20 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

i am a Christian, and i don't feel "harassed".  so, either we have a different meaning of that term, or you have it wrong.

Harassment (/həˈræsmənt/ or /ˈhærəsmənt/) covers a wide range of behaviours of an offensive nature. It is commonly understood as behaviour intended to disturb or upset, and it is characteristically repetitive. In the legal sense, it is intentional behaviour which is found threatening or disturbing.

This behaviour was intended to disturb and upset. The fact that it isn't habitual, as far as we know, is why I said suspended sentence so no punishment unless it happens again.

later- my question revolves around the proximate target of upset in the case of harassment.

in the legal sense, there is a victim, and a perp.  the perp in this case is the kid.  the victim is...who?  i am not being a smartass- i just don't think the kid was thinking about Christians when he did this.  he was not trying to make a political or religious statement.  if there was a statue with a gorilla he would have done exactly the same thing.  he thinks that posing on a statue is funny.  and sure, he probably recognized that some people would be offended by it.  but harassment presumes that the GOAL of the behavior is to disturb or upset: that was it's intention.  in this case, i think the intention was to be funny and irreverent- not to "harass" Christians.

agree or disagree?

[djAdvocate]

Sept 15, 2014 14:44:31 GMT -5 laterbloomer said:

Sept 15, 2014 14:40:59 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

this is a slope that is so slippery that nobody can even stand on it, imo.

note to the board: i almost NEVER use that phrase- it is totally abused- but i think it totally applies here.

Oh for Pete's sake, no it isn't. There is a purpose to MacDonald's other than upsetting Hindus. As well as PITA. The only intent of those pictures is disrespect.

i think you are failing to recognize that there was a PURPOSE to this other than harassment.

i can give you another example: tagging.  the proximate goal of tagging is not to vandalize property.  the proximate goal is to establish territory and gain recognition.  and if this kid had tagged the Jesus, he would absolutely have violated the law- but again, his goal would not have been to "offend Christians".  it would have been the same as if the statue was a gorilla.

[Wisconsin Beth]

Sept 15, 2014 14:44:31 GMT -5 laterbloomer said:

Sept 15, 2014 14:40:59 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

this is a slope that is so slippery that nobody can even stand on it, imo.

note to the board: i almost NEVER use that phrase- it is totally abused- but i think it totally applies here.

Oh for Pete's sake, no it isn't. There is a purpose to MacDonald's other than upsetting Hindus. As well as PITA. The only intent of those pictures is disrespect.

I really love the typo here. 

[djAdvocate]

Sept 15, 2014 14:47:02 GMT -5 Sum Dum Gai said:

Sept 15, 2014 14:40:49 GMT -5 laterbloomer said:

This behaviour was intended to disturb and upset. The fact that it isn't habitual, as far as we know, is why I said suspended sentence so no punishment unless it happens again.

I doubt it was intended to disturb and upset. It was intended to be funny. It was done by an adolescent who didn't have the forethought to realize how disturbed and upset it would make people. Like a dumb teen making a sexist joke. He doesn't mean to offend people, he's too immature to realize how offensive he's being.

and i would bet he will learn well from this.  he might even shed a few tears.  he might end up running for Senator someday. 

[Deleted]

Sept 15, 2014 14:45:15 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Sept 15, 2014 14:40:49 GMT -5 laterbloomer said:

This behaviour was intended to disturb and upset. The fact that it isn't habitual, as far as we know, is why I said suspended sentence so no punishment unless it happens again.

later- my question revolves around the proximate target of upset in the case of harassment.

in the legal sense, there is a victim, and a perp.  the perp in this case is the kid.  the victim is...who?  i am not being a smartass- i just don't think the kid was thinking about Christians when he did this.  he was not trying to make a political or religious statement.  if there was a statue with a gorilla he would have done exactly the same thing.  he thinks that posing on a statue is funny.  and sure, he probably recognized that some people would be offended by it.  but harassment presumes that the GOAL of the behavior is to disturb or upset: that was it's intention.  in this case, i think the intention was to be funny and irreverent- not to "harass" Christians.

agree or disagree?

I don't agree. But that would be a finding of fact or whatever the wording is. I very much believe he thought it was funny to desecrate the statue exactly because it would harass people of that faith.

[djAdvocate]

Sept 15, 2014 14:44:31 GMT -5 laterbloomer said:

Sept 15, 2014 14:40:59 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

this is a slope that is so slippery that nobody can even stand on it, imo.

note to the board: i almost NEVER use that phrase- it is totally abused- but i think it totally applies here.

Oh for Pete's sake, no it isn't. There is a purpose to MacDonald's other than upsetting Hindus. As well as PITA. The only intent of those pictures is disrespect.

i fervently disagree.  i think the pictures were intended to be funny.  they weren't.  kids are dumb.  most of them grow out if it.

[Angel!]

Sept 15, 2014 14:40:49 GMT -5 laterbloomer said:

Sept 15, 2014 13:27:20 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

i am a Christian, and i don't feel "harassed".  so, either we have a different meaning of that term, or you have it wrong.

Harassment (/həˈræsmənt/ or /ˈhærəsmənt/) covers a wide range of behaviours of an offensive nature. It is commonly understood as behaviour intended to disturb or upset, and it is characteristically repetitive. In the legal sense, it is intentional behaviour which is found threatening or disturbing.

This behaviour was intended to disturb and upset. The fact that it isn't habitual, as far as we know, is why I said suspended sentence so no punishment unless it happens again.

I am actually guessing the behavior was intended to be funny.  I found it a lot more funny than disturbing personally (yeah, I'll admit it).  

Humor is often on the line between funny & upsetting.  It is a great comedian that can push that boundary without crossing it.  This is a teen & not a great comedian.  He did something that he & his friends found amusing & posted it to facebook.  Turns out not everyone was equally as amused.

[Deleted]

Sept 15, 2014 14:48:22 GMT -5 Sum Dum Gai said:

Sept 15, 2014 14:44:31 GMT -5 laterbloomer said:

Oh for Pete's sake, no it isn't. There is a purpose to MacDonald's other than upsetting Hindus. As well as PITA. The only intent of those pictures is disrespect.

Disrespect isn't illegal though.

Well apparently desecration is and in this case the disrespect manifested as desecration.

Okay, guys. I'm done with this topic. See ya on another thread.

[djAdvocate]

Sept 15, 2014 14:50:35 GMT -5 laterbloomer said:

Sept 15, 2014 14:45:15 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

later- my question revolves around the proximate target of upset in the case of harassment.

in the legal sense, there is a victim, and a perp.  the perp in this case is the kid.  the victim is...who?  i am not being a smartass- i just don't think the kid was thinking about Christians when he did this.  he was not trying to make a political or religious statement.  if there was a statue with a gorilla he would have done exactly the same thing.  he thinks that posing on a statue is funny.  and sure, he probably recognized that some people would be offended by it.  but harassment presumes that the GOAL of the behavior is to disturb or upset: that was it's intention.  in this case, i think the intention was to be funny and irreverent- not to "harass" Christians.

agree or disagree?

I don't agree. But that would be a finding of fact or whatever the wording is. I very much believe he thought it was funny to desecrate the statue exactly because it would harass people of that faith.

ok.  i see why you are upset.  but i stand behind what i say.  i don't think he intended to offend you and other Christians.

[Deleted]

Do you really think if it was a kneeling clown, or right height dog statue that they wouldn't have done the same? Your exposure to boys might be limited. 

I doubt he thought any at all about people of faith. 

The idea that this is harassment takes away from genuine cases of harassment. 

[Deleted]

Offending is not illegal, nor should it be.

[djAdvocate]

Sept 15, 2014 14:52:01 GMT -5 laterbloomer said:

Sept 15, 2014 14:48:22 GMT -5 Sum Dum Gai said:

Disrespect isn't illegal though.

Well apparently desecration is and in this case the disrespect manifested as desecration.

i think we have already established that this does not meet the standard of desecration, which is defined as "violently defiling".  i consider this "playful defilement", for those that can accept that as NOT an oxymoron.

Okay, guys. I'm done with this topic. See ya on another thread.

you are free to.  however, i think that everyone here is being civil, and the conversation has proceeded along a linear path, and we are not just hashing the same stuff over and over again, so i can't really see why you are leaving.

speaking for myself, i am very much enjoying this conversation, and hope you stay a part of it. 

[djAdvocate]

he probably spent too much time watching this video:

[Deleted]

Sept 15, 2014 14:53:57 GMT -5 oped said:

Do you really think if it was a kneeling clown, or right height dog statue that they wouldn't have done the same? Your exposure to boys might be limited. 

I doubt he thought any at all about people of faith. 

The idea that this is harassment takes away from genuine cases of harassment. 

No, I don't think he would have done the same to a clown or dog. Those things would have made him look bad. This IS a genuine case of harassment and to dismiss it is a problem. IF the jury found he had no ill intent then he wouldn't be found guilty. But I think there is some hint of intent to desecrate since the sheriff or whoever did go to the trouble of dusting off the rarely used law.

[Deleted]

Good grief djAdvocate that's a whole different discussion of awful.