There is an interesting case that in Pennsylvania where an unnamed teen is charged with “desecration” of a statue of Jesus in front of the Love in the Name of Christ, a Christian organization in Everett, Pennsylvania. The charge against the 14-year-old raises significant first amendment questions in the alleged desecration of a venerated object. He could be (unlikely) jailed for two jails for insulting a religious statue, something that contravenes free speech and establishment principles as well as vagueness issues. Warning: some viewers may find the picture below disturbing.
“Desecration” is defined in Pennsylvania 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.” What on Earth does “physically mistreating” mean with a statue? The addition of “otherwise” to “defacing, damaging, polluting” adds another element of ambiguity and vagueness.
That fact that this was a religious statue seems to be motivating the charge. It seems unlikely that the teen would have been charged in the same way with a frog or dog statue. None of these excuses his actions, of course. His conduct was obnoxious and disgraceful. Unfortunately, those terms could be in the dictionary under “teenager.”
While there will be pressure to get the teen to plead out, the law appears ripe for an either as applied or facial challenge.
Kudos: Michael Blott
I guess some people just aren’t as funny as they think.
If he is smart he is going to want to plead out. A jury trial is out of the question, they will hang him.
There was a case in Britain where some teen peed on a national war memorial. Cannot remember what they finally convicted him of, but he was ripe for hanging for awhile.
The statue is not “vandalized.” When the little a-hole leaves the statue is status quo. I pray to Jesus daily. I have long felt both he and his Father have a sense of humor. That’s why they imbued most of us w/ one. Some must have gotten in the wrong line. The same hold true to common sense. Here’s one thing anyone who truly believes in Jesus will admit. He forgives this doofus.
Trespassing only. Anything else, in this and similar instances, is an outrage.
From the photo itself I do not see any damage to the statue. If it is not damaged then what did he do other than defame perhaps a piece of stone. If he broke something then its a different story. I think that the prosecution is facially weak. Some people think that Jesus was bent. This guy is just exercising his First Amendment right to exercise his religion. There are several prongs to the First Amendment and the free speech prong should never be confused with the free exercise prong. And if this guy got his prong up by ambulating with Jesus it is ok. As long as Jesus is not on the cross when he is doing it. Then it would be a prior restraint issue.
I found the applicable statute in PA here: http://statutes.laws.com/pennsylvania/title-18/chapter-55/5509
Where desecration is defined as: “”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. – See more at: http://statutes.laws.com/pennsylvania/title-18/chapter-55/5509#sthash.cjXQbOPw.dpuf”
The first issue is the interesting twist in PA that a ‘misdemeanor’ in the 2nd degree carries with it a potential prison term of 2 years. I always think of the felony/misdemeanor threshold as being 1 year potential loss of liberty.
Notwithstanding the statute has a clear role in protecting against unwanted vandalism, think Nazis defacing a synagogue with swastikas, potentially even burning crosses on people’s lawns, or, as the statute specifically contemplates, desecration of gravesites.
Of course, the challenge here is whether or not the statute, as applied, is OVERBROAD such as to infringe on I Amendment rights where there isn’t actually a physical defacement (the article does not note any physical defacement)
I would think that any person taking a photo of a person giving an obscene gesture to that statute could also be prosecuted under this law. Thus I think that the law is WAY overbroad and absurd.
The Son of God endured the worst of all humiliations voluntarily. Patience – we’ll all have our day in court.
@jonalan
So you think JT is wrong in speculating that religious sentiment may be a motivating factor in charging this teen? I think he is spot-on. This particular law has rarely been enforced, and on those occasions in which it has it involved religious symbols. It is not anti-theist behavior to point this out. You think the authorities would have charged the teen – who exercised very poor judgement in this instance – had he done the same with a non-religious statue? I suspect not. The young man should be subject to consequences. But these should not follow from the selective enforcement of a law that almost certainly runs afoul of the free speech clause of the U.S. Constitution.
What I find particularly obnoxious is those who are in favor of doing something to this kid are the same ones who denounce Putin for prosecuting Pussy Riot and throwing them in prison for two years. They need to leave the US and go to Russia where their co-thinkers if you can call them thinkers hold sway.
Religion poisons everything.
doglover
Dropping deadly explosive bombs on defenseless people is far more offensive. But this young man is easy to arrest and punish. The military industrial complex is a bigger challenge.
———————————
Wow, that escalated really fast. I mean, really, really quickly.
I think there’s a middle ground between the depraved acts by this young boy and the military industrial complex.
People have been attaching basketballs to the hand of the MLK statue in Charlotte–to make it look like he’s dribbling a ball–for decades. As far as I know the only charges ever brought have been minor ones for vandalism.
I’m not sure how a “desecration” law is constitutional, whether or not the object is a religious one. On the face of it, it’s a law against offending people, which is ridiculous.
@Squeeky Fromm “Please check the spelling. I am sure you will then admit your error.” Yes, you are clearly rite. Becuz changing the spelling–espeshully in ways that dont affect pronunciashun–totally means that your screenname has NUTHING to do with an infamous person who tried to assassinate a US president.
Well done, you. You are indeed a clever, incisive individual.
@randyjet
Please check the spelling. I am sure you will then admit your error.
Thank you.
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
Turley, ever the anti-Theist, gets it wrong again. While one could argue that the worthless piece of crap’s right to free speech was violated, one cannot on the face of it, claim that the law in question violates the Establishment Clause just because it was a religious icon that this filth desecrated.
To claim a violation of the Establishment Clause one would have to show a pattern of unequal enforcement of the law in question that favored one particular religion or a small group of them.
Dropping deadly explosive bombs on defenseless people is far more offensive. But this young man is easy to arrest and punish. The military industrial complex is a bigger challenge.
He acted stupidly, i.e. like a teenager. This is behavior for his parents to address. He did not vandalize it, maybe trespass as someone suggested if it was posted but since it is a church property I would think it is open for folks to walk over to the statue.
By all means somebody call the ACLU because we sure don ‘t want our teenagers to feel they ought to respect anything
This from a person who uses a name most think is very offensive to most normal people. Maybe Eva Braun might be a better name to use instead. While the picture is offensive to many, it did not result in any damage other than to some sensibilities. Any charges are absurd and is no business of the state. We are simply following Putin’s lead in this, and it is un-American.
“His conduct was obnoxious and disgraceful. – JT
The governments down through time have also been responsible for that type of behavior, albeit in a more official way.
OT: the ACLU v Clapper case is in the Second Circuit, and the oral argument was recently videoed.
By all means somebody call the ACLU because we sure don ‘t want our teenagers to feel they ought to respect anything. For a follow -up, maybe the little pervert can go and write something dirty on tbe Flight 93 Memorial.
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
Tasteless, depraved, and as protected as any other act which could be considered “speach”.
I am surprised simple Tresspass was not charged instead, although as problematic it does not raise easily defended constitutional issues.