P.S. It's a statue. Won't Christianity survive just fine without prosecuting a 14-year-old boy for doing what 14-year-old boys do?

The notion that the 1st Amendment protects the traffick in obscene photographs does not pre-date 1965.

And, no, you should not excuse grotesque behavior by early adolescents (who are hardly universally grotesque, while we're at it).

Giving kids cell phones with cameras has exposed a lot of stupid shit that people used to get away with in the past.

The law is probably unconstitutional, but good luck coming up with the funds to fight it all the way to the Supreme Court.

I am really glad my kids are in their late twenties, so I didn't have to give the cell phone camera lecture, along with the driver's license responsibility lecture, and the drinking laws lecture.

Lukianoff points to American college campuses where speakers are routinely disinvited for their opinions...

This kind of statement always bugs me, because it's supposed to suggest our rights of free speech are being eroded, when in fact, this falls under "working as intended."

You have a right to speak your mind, but that doesn't translate into a right to be insulated from criticism. If you're slated to speak at a college campus, but one of your recently expressed opinions prompts the college to uninvite you, that is not your justification to complain about the loss of free speech. They aren't suggesting you be jailed for it or that you don't have the right to say what you think. They're exercising their freedom of association by choosing not to be associated with you.

It's so freaking whiny. "Waaaaah...the college uninvited me to be a speaker because of what I said last week." Well, so what?

Does Jesus would only blow a circumcised 14 year olds?

Patrick: You have a right to speak your mind, but that doesn't translate into a right to be insulated from criticism. If you're slated to speak at a college campus, but one of your recently expressed opinions prompts the college to uninvite you, that is not your justification to complain about the loss of free speech. They aren't suggesting you be jailed for it or that you don't have the right to say what you think. They're exercising their freedom of association by choosing not to be associated with you.
-------------

Of course, when this is a public university, and generally only those views that deviate from the leftist-academic world view are routinely disinvited, we de facto have government censorship. This is complicated further by the amount of public money taken in by private universities. All that said, I agree that a private actor has every right to choose speakers as he sees fit. A public actor has a responsibility to provide some balance, which admittedly is a very subjective task.

That's a valid point, Jeff. You make a compelling argument that college campuses should provide some balance.

The curious aspect of this is being uninvited. In other words, the campus was all set to have Ted Nugent come in and address an audience of young people seeking to further their education. But whoops, did he just say he wants the President to perform fellatio on his semi-automatic rifle? I...ah...don't think we want him here any more.

Why are they being invited, then uninvited, as opposed to just being excluded altogether?

Why are they being invited, then uninvited, as opposed to just being excluded altogether?

Posted by: Patrick at September 13, 2014 8:09 AM

Because college administrators have backbones made out of bananas.

I look forward to the day when colleges are so short of funds that they no longer have the ability to use tax payer dollars to hire paid speakers whose views almost always align with the political views of the college administration.

These are nothing more than poorly disguised political donations.

@"And, no, you should not excuse grotesque behavior by early adolescents"

This is a classic victimless crime, plain and simple. "Being offended" is not a state of victimhood.

The solution's pretty obvious: Don't prosecute. Just show his face.

Why would a news organization blur that out?

"Being offended" is not a state of victimhood.

You've never met a southern baptist or an Orthdox Jew I take it?

If Amy's premise is true then how do you "teach" the need to "respect" other people's mores/values even if you find them childish and funny. Respect is a valuable skill set when venturing forth in the world.

Also curious what "speech" is being protected here. What is his point, his message, that needs to be protected by the First Amendment.

Why do I have to tolerate his behavior by ignoring it. If I showed his picture w/his face on a billboard indicating that I disagreed with his "speech", would my "speech" be acceptable and also protected just as his evidently needs to be?

hehe, that photo is actually pretty funny!

If he had somehow or other damaged the object that might be different.

But, to charge him with the crime of desecrating a "venerated" object is beyond stupid. And just what the hell is the legal definition of a "venerated" object anyway?

What if I want to protest Islam (or some other religion) and decided to burn a Koran; would that make me guilty of a crime?

What about the in-breds who burn crosses while wearing white sheets? Are they desecrating a venerated object when they do that?

What if I worship nature and decide that the rocks in my garden are "venerated" objects and you cut through my garden walking on them? Are you guilty of a crime?

Good grief! Lawmakers can be stupid at times.

If he had somehow or other damaged the object that might be different.

But, to charge him with the crime of desecrating a "venerated" object is beyond stupid. And just what the hell is the legal definition of a "venerated" object anyway?

I think if he was pooping on the Koran, he would have changed his name, and moved to am different state by now.

No desecration laws needed, for a group that will cut off your head for insulting them.

Pennsylvania is clearly desecrating the 1st Amendment - quite venerated, and deservedly so, last time I checked. Why haven't they arrested the author of that law?

hehe, that photo is actually pretty funny!

If you're an arrested development case, sure.

While we are at it, the statute is on private property and owned by a philanthropic agency which might not be all too pleased that it's iconography has been abused in this manner.

Also curious what "speech" is being protected here. What is his point, his message, that needs to be protected by the First Amendment.

Well, yes, the jurists who concocted the concept of 'speech-acts' might just explain why torching Justice Ginsburg's chambers is not a 'speech-act'.

It was Robert Bork who pointed out that the 1st Amendment protections following the religion clauses all derive from democratic processes. Attempts by the Democratic Party to shut down their opposition through campaign finance laws, the tax apparatchiki, and prosecutor fishing expeditions are an offense against that. Fining some asinine juvenile for being a vulgar twit is not.

> If you're an arrested development
> case, sure.

A guy who thinks Montgomery was a "contrivance" wants to tell us how human beings are best refined.

How darling.

What's it like to be that guy?

It's gotta suck. You wake up in the middle of the night, and you're that guy.

"Also curious what "speech" is being protected here. What is his point, his message, that needs to be protected by the First Amendment."

First year constitutional law exam question: Explain why laws against posting campaign posters, on both public and private property, or laws against public nudity, are not a violation of the first amendment.

Bob: Also curious what "speech" is being protected here. What is his point, his message, that needs to be protected by the First Amendment

Why does his speech have to be "defined" in order to protected?

Can't it just be funny? or is only serious speech protected?

And, yes, Art I am a case of "arrested development." So what?

If it's not defined then who decides what is to be protected and what is not?

Oh, that's why a law was passed.

"Being offended" is not a state of victimhood."

Unless you subscribe to a weak-ass god who, although the creator of every grain of dust across the universe and everything which crawls, swims, flies, walks, or shambles, must be protected by the city council from teen boys.

Otherwise, Satan wins.

I took some test floating around the net. I answered it honestly.

http://www.playbuzz.com/gregs/can-we-guess-who-you-are-in-only-20-questions

It determined I was a male, in my late teens. I took it again with perhaps more appropriate responses. It determined I was a male, in my late teens.

And yes, I thought the photograph was hilarious.

Arrested development is me.

We shouldn't even need the 1st Amendment to figure out that since there is no victim here, there is no crime, period. That's all there is to it.

Art Deco, you are welcome to find the kid's behavior disgusting, and you can "tut tut" him all day long in online forums and you are welcome to send his parents a strongly worded email. But legal action? No.

@"the statute [sic] is on private property and owned by a philanthropic agency which might not be all too pleased that it's iconography has been abused in this manner"

Again, 'being displeased' does not make one a victim of a crime. He wasn't damaging their property, so the only recourse they would have against him if he was behaving in a manner they didn't approve of on their private property would be to ask him to leave, and only then if he refused the request to leave, he would then be committing a crime (trespass).

It isn't trespass if you later find out 'after the fact', via photograph, that someone did something you didn't like on your property.

First-Amendment-wise: If the (in)famous Piss Christ photo is legally OK, so is this.

It isn't trespass if you later find out 'after the fact', via photograph, that someone did something you didn't like on your property.

Posted by: Lobster at September 13, 2014 5:04 PM

So you can't get a ticket for running a red light, because that picture taken by the traffic camera is "after the fact". Uh huh.

Trespass is a red herring here. Has nothing to do with what laws local and state government can make, and enforce.

And yes, I think the law is stupid. A lot of them are, but this is small potatoes, not criminal law.

It may be free speech, but I still hope his parents smack the crap out of him.

He wasn't damaging their property, so the only recourse they would have against him if he was behaving in a manner they didn't approve of on their private property would be to ask him to leave, and only then if he refused the request to leave, he would then be committing a crime (trespass).

See Article 245 of the Penal Law of New York "Offenses Against Public Sensibilities", 245.00 "Public Lewdness"

--

Various feelings about this..finally settled on the belief that any statue would have served the purpose. A woman, a dog, a child, a fish, whatever. Anything with the head at the right level. Hur, hur, look how clever I am! Nothing personal, Jesus. (I hope. That's a whole nuther problem.)

As a Christian myself, I'm more offended by a statue of Jesus than someone being disrespectful to it.

I didn't think the photograph was even mildly amusing. Childish, yes. However, the subject of that photograph is an child, so I suppose he's right where he should be.

I'm not offended by his actions from any religious standpoint. I only feel that he should be more respectful of other peoples' property. Not his parcel of land, not his statue; he has no business on either.

As for charging him with a crime and threatening him with a two year sentence? That is a massive overreaction. His parents should make him write a letter of apology and let it go at that.

He did a sexually suggestive action on a lifeless object; he wasn't sadistically torturing bunnies. There's reason for a court case at all.

So, Art, how long has it been since you had your sense of humor surgically removed?

If he's interested in defusing the situation, he should just go all over the place getting fake blowjobs of everything at crotch level. Than all the photos could be used for a new coffee table book or calendar. Oh, the possibilities!

pricklypear: Various feelings about this..finally settled on the belief that any statue would have served the purpose. A woman, a dog, a child, a fish,...

It would have to be a blowfish.

By the way, consistent with my habit of thinking faster than I can type, I noticed I left a crucial word out of my last sentence in my previous post. I meant to say there's no reason for a court case at all.

Another amusing mistake I made, I referred to him as "an child." That's because I originally used the word "adolescent." But when I replaced it with child, I forgot to correct the article.

-It would have to be a blowfish.-

While he sings "I Go Blind."

Also curious what "speech" is being protected here. What is his point, his message, that needs to be protected by the First Amendment.

Why do I have to tolerate his behavior by ignoring it. If I showed his picture w/his face on a billboard indicating that I disagreed with his "speech", would my "speech" be acceptable and also protected just as his evidently needs to be?

You dont have to know
You dont have to tolerate it
As acceptable, and yes

The protection of free speech isnt for things no one finds offensive

See Article 245 of the Penal Law of New York "Offenses Against Public Sensibilities", 245.00 "Public Lewdness" ~ Posted by: Art Deco at September 13, 2014 7:22 PM

Huh-huh. He said "penal."

Just because it's the law doesn't mean it's Constitutional.

==============================

Respect is a valuable skill set when venturing forth in the world. ~ Posted by: Bob in Texas at September 13, 2014 11:36 AM

I remember when I was a child and acted up during a church service, my father took me aside and told me to stop. I protested that this was not our religion. He explained that it didn't matter. You show respect for another man's religion.

==============================

As a Christian myself, I'm more offended by a statue of Jesus than someone being disrespectful to it. ~ Posted by: Patrick at September 13, 2014 7:55 PM

While it's an odd way to look at it, I'm in full agreement. I find overt displays of religiosity ("look at me!") make me more uncomfortable than displays desecrating the same.

I found Piss-Christ to be less offensive than stupid. I don't need to watch the artist's childish temper tantrum against the religion of his parents played out in a public forum.

I grew up around religious icons - from my Catholic grandparents, three years of Catholic school, and my Catholic-sponsored Boy Scout troop to my evangelical Southern Baptist neighbors. In my mixed-religion childhood house, religious displays were limited to a crucifix on the bedroom wall and a Bible in the bookshelf. We went to church and prayed and didn't feel the need to publicly announce any of that to anyone else.

It's little too much like a politician carrying a Bible to church in a photo op right after being caught in bed with his mistress. It's not so much that he's pious as that he wants desperately to be seen as pious. And no one's buying it.

==============================

You don't have a right to not be offended. ~ Posted by: Amy Alkon at September 13, 2014 7:02 AM

It's very difficult to not be offended today ... for anyone. And every offense today seems to result in a resort to the Constitution to defend the offender. Not everything's a Constitutional crisis.

Notice the Founding Fathers did not put free expression into the Constitution. They put free speech. They put in the ability of people to speak out in public. We've since expanded that protection to cover other forms of expression: dance, music, artwork, etc. And while we need to be careful in any attempt to proscribe that right, do we really want to argue that it covers pretending to hump a statue?

Let's keep in mind, this kid is not making a valid point. He's not arguing about religion's place in a free society. He's not speaking truth to power. He's playing a juvenile prank.

I'm sure the original law was intended to deter hate groups. The problem with codifying punishment for this sort of conduct into law is that the law casts a wide net. That wide net ensnares the hate group, but it also ensnares the guy who legitimately speaks out against religion.

This kid needs the back of his head slapped by an adult involved with what kind of person he turns out to be. Unfortunately, most of our legal adults have yet to grow up.

In lieu of involved adults, we're trying to make the law do the job in loco parentis and the law cannot do the job without limiting the rights of the rest of us.

Legally punishing this kid for desecrating an "venerated object" is overreach. So is defending him on the grounds of free speech. This isn't a free speech case, it's a juvenile prank. And one that doesn't merit the involvement of the legal system or the Constitution.

The prosecutors in this case should be chagrined, and perhaps censured for wasting the court's time and the taxpayers' money.

Go home kid. And put on a shirt!

A thoughtful post, Conehead (I told you, it's an affectionate pet name). I'm glad you agree that this is hardly worth making a court case out of. I hadn't considered the other aspect, that the kid hardly needs first amendment protections. There was no expression involved in his actions. Just immaturity. (Though it might be funny, if he were asked to justify his actions, to hear the artistic/political statement he would make up.)

@Isab "So you can't get a ticket for running a red light, because that picture taken by the traffic camera is "after the fact". Uh huh. "

The difference is with the red light, the camera catches you actually committing a crime. It's not tresspass unless you're asked to leave WHILE THERE .. you can't be retroactively asked to leave weeks later after someone finds a photo that was taken while you were still on the property.

And yes, trespass is irrelevant - that was my whole point.

@"And yes, trespass is irrelevant - that was my whole point."

I brought up trespass specifically only because Art Deco actually claimed the crime here was that the kid did something that would have displeased the owners of the property (hence, the implication being they would not have wanted him there doing that - i.e. it's effectively a claim that the crime was trespass).

@Art Deco "See Article 245 of the Penal Law of New York "Offenses Against Public Sensibilities", 245.00 "Public Lewdness" "

No victim? No crime. Unless you can show me the victim of this "crime", take your statutes, print them out, and shove them somewhere.

he difference is with the red light, the camera catches you actually committing a crime.

As the camera did in this case, and again, the crime wasn't trespass.

Have a nude picture of yourself taken in a public place, and see if they don't charge you with public indecency. After the fact....

It is a silly law, probably shouldn't be on the books, but the proof that the act happened is right there, on Facebook, in living color. Dead to rights, is what they call it.

do we really want to argue that it covers pretending to hump a statue?

Do we really want to spend several tens of thousands of dollars, possibly hundreds of thousands of dollars, to punish one child in an attempt to placate the outrage of one person for an offense that caused no physical damage?