Page 50 of 54 FirstFirst ... 404849505152 ... LastLast
Results 491 to 500 of 540

Thread: Boy Charged For Desecration Of Jesus Statue

  1. #491
    Maquis Admiral
    maquiscat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:08 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    7,943

    Re: Boy Charged For Desecration Of Jesus Statue

    Quote Originally Posted by TheNextEra View Post
    Not following your question, are you wanting to charge a statue with being nude?
    You stated that the law required nudity for the charge to be a sex crime. I am asking if the nudity has to be on the part of only the perpetrator of the sex crime, or is nudity of the victim also applicable to charge the perpetrator? Note that your statement does not apply specifically to this case. For it to specifically apply you would have had to state to the effect of, "the perpetrator would have to have some kind of nudity exposure for a sex crime to apply in this case." But you did not so I am testing your ability to recognize what law says.
    Bi, Poly, Switch. I'm not indecisive, I'm greedy!

  2. #492
    Almost respectable

    Cardinal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    34,934

    Re: Boy Charged For Desecration Of Jesus Statue

    Quote Originally Posted by maquiscat View Post
    You stated that the law required nudity for the charge to be a sex crime. I am asking if the nudity has to be on the part of only the perpetrator of the sex crime, or is nudity of the victim also applicable to charge the perpetrator? Note that your statement does not apply specifically to this case. For it to specifically apply you would have had to state to the effect of, "the perpetrator would have to have some kind of nudity exposure for a sex crime to apply in this case." But you did not so I am testing your ability to recognize what law says.
    Just jumping in here. According to uslegal.com (and not Pennsylvania law, which I don't know) the closest that the teenager would be accused of (if a sex crime were to be an accusation) would be lewd conduct.

    Sex crimes refer to criminal offenses of a sexual nature.

    Commonly known sex crimes include, rape, child molestation, sexual battery, lewd conduct, possession and distribution of child pornography, possession and distribution of obscene material, prostitution, solicitation of prostitution, pimping, pandering, indecent exposure, lewd act with a child, and penetration of the genital or anal region by a foreign Object.
    It would then be up to the prosecutor, I imagine, to somehow successfully argue that lewd conduct occurred without a victim and without actual visual exposure of the genitals. I have no law expertise myself, but I still wouldn't find that argument very compelling.
    Last edited by Cardinal; 09-26-14 at 12:37 PM.

  3. #493
    Almost respectable

    Cardinal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    34,934

    Re: Boy Charged For Desecration Of Jesus Statue

    As for desecration, uslegal sez...

    Desecration is the act of depriving something of its sacred character. For instance, the desecration of national flag is an offence. Desecration is the physical mistreatment which the actor knows will seriously offend one or more persons likely to observe or discover the action. The flag-desecration statute is intended to protect the physical integrity of the flag against impairments that would cause serious offense to others, and is aimed at protecting onlookers from being offended by the ideas expressed by the prohibited activity.
    If state laws are consistent with uslegal's definition, then they cast an absurdly wide net and could easily infringe on first amendment rights in far more innocuous examples than the one in this thread.

  4. #494
    Maquis Admiral
    maquiscat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:08 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    7,943

    Re: Boy Charged For Desecration Of Jesus Statue

    Quote Originally Posted by Cardinal View Post
    Just jumping in here. According to uslegal.com (and not Pennsylvania law, which I don't know) the closest that the teenager would be accused of (if a sex crime were to be an accusation) would be lewd conduct.



    It would then be up to the prosecutor, I imagine, to somehow successfully argue that lewd conduct occurred without a victim and without actual visual exposure of the genitals. I have no law expertise myself, but I still wouldn't find that argument very convincing.
    Remember that I noted that he shifted to a general statement that nudity was required for any offense to be a sex crime. I'm asking him to bask that up. He can't of course, and once he tries I will slam him with an example that will undermine that particular argument so deep it will fall to China.
    Bi, Poly, Switch. I'm not indecisive, I'm greedy!

  5. #495
    Almost respectable

    Cardinal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    34,934

    Re: Boy Charged For Desecration Of Jesus Statue

    Quote Originally Posted by maquiscat View Post
    Remember that I noted that he shifted to a general statement that nudity was required for any offense to be a sex crime. I'm asking him to bask that up. He can't of course, and once he tries I will slam him with an example that will undermine that particular argument so deep it will fall to China.
    It was probably an unwise generalization to make...

  6. #496
    Noblesse oblige
    Ockham's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    New Jersey
    Last Seen
    01-27-17 @ 07:23 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    23,909
    Blog Entries
    4

    Re: Boy Charged For Desecration Of Jesus Statue

    Quote Originally Posted by TheNextEra View Post
    You are asking to prove a negative. The proper question would be for you to show where it does apply.
    I'm asking you to provide a citation of US law for your comment in which you said:

    Quote Originally Posted by TheNextEra
    Unless he exposed himself, there would be NO sexual crime.
    I think if Thomas Jefferson were looking down, the author of the Bill of Rights, on whats being proposed here, hed agree with it. He would agree that the First Amendment cannot be absolute. - Chuck Schumer (D). Yet, Madison and Mason wrote the Bill of Rights, according to Sheila Jackson Lee, 400 years ago. Yup, it's a fact.


  7. #497
    Almost respectable

    Cardinal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    34,934

    Re: Boy Charged For Desecration Of Jesus Statue

    Quote Originally Posted by Papa bull View Post
    I think hate crime laws violate the first amendment, too, but they're still in place. In my opinion, the photograph is merely evidence of the offense not the offense, itself. And I think obscenity laws are still in place and the community may consider such a photograph and such behavior to be obscene.
    That would depend on laws concerning the distribution of obscene material, and whether the photographs constitutes obscenity.

  8. #498
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Last Seen
    08-29-17 @ 09:28 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    16,575

    Re: Boy Charged For Desecration Of Jesus Statue

    Quote Originally Posted by Ockham View Post
    I'm asking you to provide a citation of US law for your comment in which you said:
    Yes, and you are asking to prove a negative. That's like asking me to site the law that says I can legally say "Hobby Time" without going to jail. By default I'm correct unless you can show a law that says otherwise.

    Can you show where gesturing to a statue is a sexual crime?

  9. #499
    Maquis Admiral
    maquiscat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:08 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    7,943

    Re: Boy Charged For Desecration Of Jesus Statue

    Quote Originally Posted by Cardinal View Post
    If state laws are consistent with uslegal's definition, then they cast an absurdly wide net and could easily infringe on first amendment rights in far more innocuous examples than the one in this thread.
    Such first amendment right, with regards to property (as opposed to real estate) do require ownership of said property. This is why flag burning in and of it self is not illegal, but if one uses a flag that belongs to another person then applicable laws apply. Burning would be a destruction of property issue. Taking another person's flag and rubbing it all over your crotch would be a desecration issue.
    Bi, Poly, Switch. I'm not indecisive, I'm greedy!

  10. #500
    Almost respectable

    Cardinal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    34,934

    Re: Boy Charged For Desecration Of Jesus Statue

    Quote Originally Posted by maquiscat View Post
    Such first amendment right, with regards to property (as opposed to real estate) do require ownership of said property. This is why flag burning in and of it self is not illegal, but if one uses a flag that belongs to another person then applicable laws apply. Burning would be a destruction of property issue. Taking another person's flag and rubbing it all over your crotch would be a desecration issue.
    I agree with the personal property aspect of this (though I think the punishment would be minimal as hell, except for trespassing which is a bit higher up in my book). I was referring to the hugely wide brush that uslegal uses to define desecration.

Page 50 of 54 FirstFirst ... 404849505152 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •