• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Boy Charged For Desecration Of Jesus Statue

TheNextEra 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?
Click to expand...
So you made a stupid statement since you can't back it up. You're the one that made the statement....

I can show you NJ (my states) criminal statues which do not require nudity;
New Jersey Statutes - Title 2C The New Jersey Code of Criminal Justice - 2C:14-2 Sexual assault. - New Jersey Attorney Resources - New Jersey Laws

I'll show NY criminal statues which do not require nudity;
Sexual Offenses in New York State Penal Law - Assault | Sarah Lawrence College

I'll show CA criminal statues which do not require nudity;
CA Codes (pen:240-248)

Isn't it easier just to say you made a mistake?
 
Ockham said:
So you made a stupid statement since you can't back it up. You're the one that made the statement....

I can show you NJ (my states) criminal statues which do not require nudity;
New Jersey Statutes - Title 2C The New Jersey Code of Criminal Justice - 2C:14-2 Sexual assault. - New Jersey Attorney Resources - New Jersey Laws

I'll show NY criminal statues which do not require nudity;
Sexual Offenses in New York State Penal Law - Assault | Sarah Lawrence College

I'll show CA criminal statues which do not require nudity;
CA Codes (pen:240-248)

Isn't it easier just to say you made a mistake?
Click to expand...

Unless he exposed himself in this case, I'm not sure how it would be a sexual crime, especially seeing as how all your links either state outright or strongly imply the involvement of a victim.
 
Cardinal said:
Unless he exposed himself in this case, I'm not sure how it would be a sexual crime, especially seeing as how all your links either state outright or strongly imply the involvement of a victim.
Click to expand...

I agree. I've already said in this case his arrest is pretty far fetched. However, my statement to TNE was regarding a generalized statement which he cannot defend and rightly so. It was an ill informed statement.
 
Ockham said:
I agree. I've already said in this case his arrest is pretty far fetched. However, my statement to TNE was regarding a generalized statement which he cannot defend and rightly so. It was an ill informed statement.
Click to expand...

Not really. His position was qualified by these other posts, which when combined say exactly what I said in post 502, and which you agreed with.

TheNextEra said:
It does when it is being done to an inanimate object.
Click to expand...

TheNextEra said:
I'm referring to this case. Do you think the kid should be put on the sexual predator list for gesturing a statue?
Click to expand...

(bold mine)
 
Ockham said:
So you made a stupid statement since you can't back it up. You're the one that made the statement....
Click to expand...

Nope, I was completely correct in what I said.

I can show you NJ (my states) criminal statues which do not require nudity;
New Jersey Statutes - Title 2C The New Jersey Code of Criminal Justice - 2C:14-2 Sexual assault. - New Jersey Attorney Resources - New Jersey Laws

I'll show NY criminal statues which do not require nudity;
Sexual Offenses in New York State Penal Law - Assault | Sarah Lawrence College

I'll show CA criminal statues which do not require nudity;
CA Codes (pen:240-248)
Click to expand...

All those links deal with assaults to a PERSON. All those links have person listed. Here's a hint, a statue isn't a person. Nice try, you fail.

Isn't it easier just to say you made a mistake?
Click to expand...

I don't know since I'm not wrong you should be asking yourself that question. A statue isn't a person.
 
Ockham said:
I agree. I've already said in this case his arrest is pretty far fetched. However, my statement to TNE was regarding a generalized statement which he cannot defend and rightly so. It was an ill informed statement.
Click to expand...

Sorry it is YOU who cannot defend it. You are trying to say a statue is a person. Your links you listed even talked about PERSONS not statues. Hence I am correct.
 
TheNextEra said:
Nope, I was completely correct in what I said.



All those links deal with assaults to a PERSON. All those links have person listed. Here's a hint, a statue isn't a person. Nice try, you fail.



I don't know since I'm not wrong you should be asking yourself that question. A statue isn't a person.
Click to expand...

The statue isn't a victim either. You made a stupid comment - now you're digging a hole with it. I'm perfectly fine letting you if that's what you want to do.
Do everyone and yourself a favor and refrain from making stupid generalizations in the future.
 
TheNextEra said:
Nope, I was completely correct in what I said.



All those links deal with assaults to a PERSON. All those links have person listed. Here's a hint, a statue isn't a person. Nice try, you fail.



I don't know since I'm not wrong you should be asking yourself that question. A statue isn't a person.
Click to expand...

But was it...statutory rape?

Ah...haha...hahahahaha.

Somebody already made that joke, didn't they.
 
TheNextEra said:
Sorry it is YOU who cannot defend it.
Click to expand...
I won't defend your ill informed statement why would I. I've already show proof nudity is not a requirement for sexual assault.

You refuse to refute that information and now claim you won. :lamo How very sad.
 
Cardinal said:
But was it...statutory rape?

Ah...haha...hahahahaha.

Somebody already made that joke, didn't they.
Click to expand...

At best this post desrves a bronze.
 
Ockham said:
I won't defend your ill informed statement why would I. I've already show proof nudity is not a requirement for sexual assault.

You refuse to refute that information and now claim you won. :lamo How very sad.
Click to expand...

Now you are moving the goalposts. I said in THIS situation (i.e. the statue), there was even a post where I said it, where nudity IN THIS CASE WOULD be required. My god man do you not read posts? I can point you to the posts, but I can't make you think.

Please show me where sexual assault against a statue is even possible.
 
Cardinal said:
But was it...statutory rape?

Ah...haha...hahahahaha.

Somebody already made that joke, didn't they.
Click to expand...

Yeah they did, but it's still funny :lol:
 
TheNextEra said:
Now you are moving the goalposts. I said in THIS situation (i.e. the statue), there was even a post where I said it, where nudity IN THIS CASE WOULD be required. My god man do you not read posts? I can point you to the posts, but I can't make you think.
Click to expand...
I specifically have focused on your post #475 which stated:

TheNextEra said:
Unless he exposed himself, there would be NO sexual crime.
Click to expand...

Only after you said it applied to THIS specific situation - so factually you moved the goalposts didn't you. Tsk.tsk.

TheNextEra said:
Please show me where sexual assault against a statue is even possible.
Click to expand...
You have Google - look it up. I've provided my facts - you fail to rebut them. You accuse me of moving the goal posts when you actually did. :yawn: Anything else?
 
Only after you said it applied to THIS specific situation - so factually you moved the goalposts didn't you. Tsk.tsk.
Click to expand...

No I didn't, I clarrified my comment, I didn't change it. There is a difference. Too bad you're more conscerned with some sort of weak "Gotcha" than you are at discussion.
Pathetic on your part.

Ockham said:
You have Google - look it up. I've provided my facts - you fail to rebut them. You accuse me of moving the goal posts when you actually did. :yawn: Anything else?
Click to expand...

If you are talking about your links, I already refuted them. Everyone one of them talks about the victim being a PERSON. A Statue is NOT a person. I'll take your concession.
 
Cardinal said:
That would depend on laws concerning the distribution of obscene material, and whether the photographs constitutes obscenity.
Click to expand...

My point was that the 1st amendment isn't a bulletproof defense against any legal ramifications you might encounter regarding the content of a photograph you distribute.
 
Papa bull said:
My point was that the 1st amendment isn't a bulletproof defense against any legal ramifications you might encounter regarding the content of a photograph you distribute.
Click to expand...

I have no illusions about the first amendment being "bullet proof" as I'm well aware of exceptions to free speech. My problem with the definition of desecration, however, is that it can be applied so widely that essentially any instance of expression can live up the standard of the definition.
 
Ockham said:
I specifically have focused on your post #475 which stated:



Only after you said it applied to THIS specific situation - so factually you moved the goalposts didn't you. Tsk.tsk.

You have Google - look it up. I've provided my facts - you fail to rebut them. You accuse me of moving the goal posts when you actually did. :yawn: Anything else?
Click to expand...
Was the statue offended? Has anyone bothered to ask the statue how it feels? Do you think that the statue will cope and learn to make it through the sexual assault?
 
TheNextEra said:
No I didn't, I clarrified my comment, I didn't change it. There is a difference. Too bad you're more conscerned with some sort of weak "Gotcha" than you are at discussion.
Pathetic on your part.
Click to expand...
It has nothing to do with gotchya anything it is a clarification of your misstatement, which is why I asked you for a citation right away.

TheNextEra said:
If you are talking about your links, I already refuted them. Everyone one of them talks about the victim being a PERSON. A Statue is NOT a person. I'll take your concession.
Click to expand...
My links prove nudity is not required for a sexual assault to take place - that's what I've said from the beginning, it was correct then and it's correct now. :shrug:
 
HenryChinaski said:
Was the statue offended? Has anyone bothered to ask the statue how it feels? Do you think that the statue will cope and learn to make it through the sexual assault?
Click to expand...

That's not what I'm arguing.
 
Ockham said:
That's not what I'm arguing.
Click to expand...
The bottom line is this is the kind of dumb ass ****e that happens in third world Islamic countries. The yahoo's who are crying "offended" and those who are trying to hang this kid should be ashamed of themselves and need to get a hobby. There are all sorts of dumb ass laws that are still on the books that the don't get prosecuted because it's finally realized that they are dumb ass laws.
 
Cardinal said:
I have no illusions about the first amendment being "bullet proof" as I'm well aware of exceptions to free speech. My problem with the definition of desecration, however, is that it can be applied so widely that essentially any instance of expression can live up the standard of the definition.
Click to expand...

And that's why we have courts to hash out the details and/or fairness of laws written by our legislators. The way I see this one is that it's a local issue and is a misdemeanor. I think they'll be able to sort this out at the local level and if not, there are always higher courts if someone wants to make a bigger issue out of it. In my personal opinion, I think it would all work out about right if the court issued a $50.00 fine and admonishment by the judge to try to use better judgement in the future. You'd get harsher treatment than that for spitting on the sidewalk in some places. Minneapolis man fined $115 for spitting on Dinkytown sidewalk - Rick Kupchella's – BringMeTheNews.com
 
maquiscat said:
The picture isn't the violation. The picture is the evidence of a violation in progress. Would you claim an arrest based upon a video of a rape to be a violation of the first amendment?
Click to expand...

The crime was doing something offensive (desecration). No one was there at the time the picture was taken to be offended. The charge was filed after the picture was seen on-line. So the offense was created by the picture, not the act. The Supreme Court has already struck down desecration laws as contrary to the first amendment. There is no right to be protected from offense in the US constitution. (although the courts have wrongly supported some laws that protect people from being offended, such as broadcast indecency laws)
 
maquiscat said:
Sorry, but no go. Desecration applies to both religious and non religious objects, so it is not an issue of religious freedom. Nor is this an issues of freedom of speech. As noted had the boy permission, or owned the statue, then a charge could be said to apply unconstitutionally by either of those reasons. But the law in and of itself really has no basis to be called unconstitutional.
Click to expand...

Read the law. It is clearly unconstitutional.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom