I hear you. It would be great if we lived in a country that recognized kids make mistakes and the legal system shouldn’t automatically be brought in for every situation. I do think some public service would be a good idea for the kid, though.
1 Like
I think you’re mischaracterizing what I’m saying. I don’t think it’s alright if he’s a Christian and not if he’s a Muslim. What I’m saying is that desecration of someone’s religious property because of that property owner’s beliefs is, as a crime, different in nature than simply destroying someone else’s property for no good reason because random douchery affects one person, douchery targeted against someone because of their religion affects everyone who associates with that religion.
Again, I’m not saying that destroying a religious object if it’s ones own property is or should be illegal (that’s all pretty well settled law in the US at this point). But desecrating someone else’s property because of their religion, gender, sexual orientation, or ethnicity is not free speech, and it’s inherently more offensive and violative than simple vandalism or trespass.
1 Like
If that’s the intended meaning, absolutely. But then we’re talking about private property issues, which is something that the law does have jurisdiction over. I can’t take your thing and damage it. I can, however, do funny, non-damaging acts to your thing that you left in a public place.
If we’re talking about the idea that thing represents, the law has no place here. Period.
6 Likes
Ok, I misunderstood your meaning; no mischaracterization intended. We’re in agreement there. As I said above, though, that’s property damage, vandalism, and/or theft, not blasphemy. But blasphemy laws are not about the object; they are about the idea that object represents, and that’s what doesn’t fly.
If desecrating a venerated object is punishable by two years in jail, lock up the prosecutor in this case, because he or she is desecrating the constitution, which is by any measure venerated. Round up the 1972 legislature behind bars while you’re at it.
2 Likes
Burning a cross in front of a black family’s house is a targeted threat (and these days might be considered “terrorism”). It is also a possible arson charge. There is a victim being targeted in that example and that kind of “expression” isn’t protected speech under the first amendment.
This guy didn’t email the photo to a religious group with a message saying, “I’m gonna skullfuck your savior.” He didn’t target anyone. No reasonable person would feel threatened by a teenager being obnoxious on Facebook. There was no victim in this guy’s expression (except maybe himself when this story comes up in search results by future employers). Unless he actually committed an act of vandalism, the most he could be charged with is trespassing if he returns to the location after being told not to come back.
9 Likes
Matthew 19:14 “Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me.” THE DEFENSE RESTS
17 Likes
unto
Not into, nor onto. 
8 Likes
Hmm. Sounds like a job for Banksy.
3 Likes
“defacing, damaging, polluting or otherwise physically mistreating”
I think the operative term here is “physically mistreating” and from the context (defacing, damaging, polluting) it pretty obviously refers to some sort of physical damage. Seems like the prosecutor was desperate to find something remotely applicable and is going far enough to try and redefine what this law says.
3 Likes
Sometimes a snapshot gives a quick parkour run through the park a whole other meaning.
anyway, who gets a blowjob from jesus with their shorts on and zipped up?
1 Like
It’s the new ‘Planking’.
2 Likes
Why? I don’t see anything about him damaging the statue. What he did is no worse than people posing for funny pictures with Ronald McDonald statues.
18 Likes
“Stiffer.” Heh, heheheh, heh heheh heheheheheheheheh. “Stiffer.” heheheheheheheheheh.
1 Like
this is the worst leaked photo from the fappening yet…
And technically, he didn’t have his junk out…to me it looks like he is just really bad at leap frog…
being boingboing i’m surprised no one has yet said…christ what a mouth hole…
7 Likes
Until I looked at the picture, for reasons unknown I assumedJesus was the receiver.
2 Likes
Wasn’t someone done for dancing on St. Ronnie’s grave a few years back? I fully intend to one day piss on Thatcher’s.
5 Likes
‘My father’s house has many glory-holes’.
2 Likes
Guilty of idolatry.
2 Likes
Plonking?
2 Likes
