• 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!

Pennsylvania teen faces two years in prison for taking a picture with Jesus

Einzige

Einzige

Elitist as Hell.
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 21, 2012
Messages
2,655
Reaction score
942
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Left
Picture at the link.

EVERETT, Pennsylvania (KRON) — A Pennsylvania teenager is facing criminal charges after posting pictures to Facebook of him simulating a sex act with a statue of Jesus.

The young man posted that he took the pictures in late July at the statue of a kneeling Jesus in front of the “Love in the Name of Christ” Christian organization in his hometown of Everett.

The criminal charge, which will be heard in family court, consists of “Desecration of a Venerated Object.”

Pennsylvania law defines desecration as “Defacing, damaging, polluting or otherwise, physically mistreating in a way that the actor knows will outrage the sensibilities of persons likely to observe or discover the action.”

The teen, whose name has not been released, could face up to two years in a juvenile jail if convicted.
Click to expand...

Now, the picture is dumb. But if it's worthy of prosecution, then half of the musical artists I listen to would probably go to prison for producing visual works that would "outrage the sensibilities of persons likely to observe or discover the action": Black Sabbath, Judas Priest, Ministry, Swans, Godflesh, Big Black, Marilyn Manson, you name it. This law could basically outlaw carte blanche a certain type of 'blasphemous' musical genre. It's dangerous and ought to be stricken from the books.

Also, fundamentalist Christians are easily the most politically correct, 'sensitive' mass interest group in America. Holy ****, cry more.

I wouldn't care if the organization on whose property the statue was pressed trespassing charges on the kid, though even then it'd be kind of petty to do over a picture. But this law is basically a "don't offend the religious sensibility of the majority" law.

Also, it looks like it's possible that the law the teen was charged under was ruled unconstitutional in 2010:

http://www.paed.uscourts.gov/documents/opinions/10D0634P.pdf

The American Civil Liberties Union of Pennsylvania filed suit on February 18, 2009, on behalf of George Kalman, a filmmaker who was prevented from incorporating his business under the name of his choice because it violates a Pennsylvania statute that prohibits corporate names containing “words that constitute blasphemy…or that profane the Lord’s name.”

Kalman, a Downingtown resident, is the founder and CEO of a film production company called “I Choose Hell Productions.” In late 2007, Kalman applied to the Pennsylvania Department of State Corporation Bureau for a certificate of organization for his business. His application was rejected because the “entity name may not contain words that constitute blasphemy, profane cursing or swearing or that profane the Lord’s name,” a direct quote from a Pennsylvania statute.

The statute is unconstitutional because the commonwealth relies on a religious standard to determine if a business name is acceptable or not. It also violates Kalman’s free speech rights by allowing anonymous government officials to refuse business names that offend them.

Kalman says he chose the name of his production company because he believes it expresses his personal philosophy that it is better to struggle through difficult times in life than to commit suicide, even if life is “hell.”

The specific Pennsylvania statue in question is § 1303(c)(2)(ii) of Title 15 of the Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes.

On June 30, 2010, the court struck down the statute as unconstitutional.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
He was charged under a different law, it's covered in the other thread we have in this:

spud_meister said:
Desecration or sale of venerated objects - 18 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 5509 - Pennsylvania Attorney Resources - Pennsylvania Laws

Pennsylvanian Law:
§ 5509. Desecration or sale of venerated objects.
(a) Offense defined.--A person commits a misdemeanor of the
second degree if he:
(1) intentionally desecrates any public monument or
structure, or place of worship or burial;
(2) if he intentionally desecrates any other object of
veneration by the public or a substantial segment thereof in
any public place; or...


...(b) Definitions.--As used in this section, the following
words and phrases shall have the meanings given to them in this
subsection:
"Desecrate." Defacing, damaging, polluting or otherwise
physically mistreating in a way that the actor knows will
outrage the sensibilities of persons likely to observe or
discover the action.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Einzige said:
Picture at the link.



Now, the picture is dumb. But if it's worthy of prosecution, then half of the musical artists I listen to would probably go to prison for producing visual works that would "outrage the sensibilities of persons likely to observe or discover the action": Black Sabbath, Judas Priest, Ministry, Swans, Godflesh, Big Black, Marilyn Manson, you name it. This law could basically outlaw carte blanche a certain type of 'blasphemous' musical genre. It's dangerous and ought to be stricken from the books.

Also, fundamentalist Christians are easily the most politically correct, 'sensitive' mass interest group in America. Holy ****, cry more.

I wouldn't care if the organization on whose property the statue was pressed trespassing charges on the kid, though even then it'd be kind of petty to do over a picture. But this law is basically a "don't offend the religious sensibility of the majority" law.

Also, it looks like it's possible that the law the teen was charged under was ruled unconstitutional in 2010:

http://www.paed.uscourts.gov/documents/opinions/10D0634P.pdf
Click to expand...
It should be unconstitutional. We do not have hate speech laws nor do we punish people for being blasphemous.Those are things Eurotrash and Islamofascist countries do.
 
It's a disgusting picture taken of/by a stupid kid, but illegal? Why? Did he really "desecrate" the statue? Wouldn't that have involved some sort of vandalism or damage to it?
 
Suggestion?




Force the people in pennsyvania who support this to PAY for his 2 year stay in prison.
 
spud_meister said:
He was charged under a different law, it's covered in the other thread we have in this:
Click to expand...


The statute you quote would seem to apply a person's own property. That alone I think makes it questionably legal. Additionally did the kid "physically mistreat" the statute?
 
Dittohead not! said:
It's a disgusting picture taken of/by a stupid kid, but illegal? Why? Did he really "desecrate" the statue? Wouldn't that have involved some sort of vandalism or damage to it?
Click to expand...

That is what I am wondering. This shouldn't be desecration. I can't agree. It was a stupid and disrespectful act. And he deserved to be punched or something like that (for being disrespectful) and not by the government. But jail time? Not a chance.
 
Is this statue something that is sensitive to touch?? That is another question. Because you should be prosecuted for stuff like that (like paintings or certain sculptures).
 
Einzige said:
Picture at the link.



Now, the picture is dumb. But if it's worthy of prosecution, then half of the musical artists I listen to would probably go to prison for producing visual works that would "outrage the sensibilities of persons likely to observe or discover the action": Black Sabbath, Judas Priest, Ministry, Swans, Godflesh, Big Black, Marilyn Manson, you name it. This law could basically outlaw carte blanche a certain type of 'blasphemous' musical genre. It's dangerous and ought to be stricken from the books.

Also, fundamentalist Christians are easily the most politically correct, 'sensitive' mass interest group in America. Holy ****, cry more.

I wouldn't care if the organization on whose property the statue was pressed trespassing charges on the kid, though even then it'd be kind of petty to do over a picture. But this law is basically a "don't offend the religious sensibility of the majority" law.

Also, it looks like it's possible that the law the teen was charged under was ruled unconstitutional in 2010:

http://www.paed.uscourts.gov/documents/opinions/10D0634P.pdf
Click to expand...
Say what you want in your own house, but don't come to our house and think we'll just let it go.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom