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
The right wing fundamentalists were right. Pennsylvania has has now adopted a Christian version of Sharia law.
OK
So, you can draw pictures of Mohammad, desecrating his image, even in humorous ways in America and not be arrested for posting them but… get caught in a photo of you simulating oral sex with a Jesus statue and you face charges of ‘desecration’ ?
Idol worshiper outrage overload!
I’m not sure this has anything at all to do with freedom of speech. To wit, this Irish Poem:
Primal Facial???
An Irish Poem by Squeeky Fromm
When discussing the Founder’s intent,
Is humping a statue what’s meant- – –
By Freedom of Speech,
Or is that over reach???
Just something a lawyer’d invent.
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
Darren,
We have one in San Diego county called the “Cardiff Kook”. it’s a statue of a surfer that is routinely “decorated”. At first it was roundly condemned and has since become an expression of current events.
http://www.thecardiffkook.org/blog/blog/
There is an oversize (in all aspects of the word) male nude in downtown Phoenix. He is regularly given a jersey if one of the local teams makes the playoffs.
FreeNYpics,
What if the offender was the President of Hobby Lobby and he claimed it was part of his religion to do this? 🙂
Well, all one has to do is go down to the Fremont neighborhood of Seattle and look at how frequently the statues there are defaced. The statues were offended when dressed up as Elvis Presley, Hawaiian Dancers or Hipsters. Being offended is cause for criminal prosecutions in the minds of too many. If statues could talk would we deface them?
Here is an example of the horror in Fremont
http://fremont.com/about/interurban-html/
My father told me of how he and his fellow MIT students would put a dress on the statue of Harvard to piss off the Harvard students. I don’t think he should have been charged for criminal mischief if they had been caught. Now the Harvard students would have had a different take on that I am sure.
randyjet – these inter-college rivalry things usually include revenge rather than criminal charges.
Is there ever a need, a place or a time for discipline?
Did the Roman Empire disintegrate from a lack of discipline?
Would discipline be apropos for America?
Is there a time when chaos and anarchy are appropriate?
Oh, I forgot. America endures multiculturalism…oops! I mean “enjoys.”
Be divided and be conquered.
So he’s playing leap frog. It’s usually played by younger children, so he probably couldn’t find anyone his age to play. He found “someone” willing to let him leap.
Richard, Indeed. If we’re limiting the analysis to the facts being reported, it does not appear to me that he violated Pennsylvania’s criminal trespass statute.
http://law.onecle.com/pennsylvania/crimes-and-offenses/00.035.003.000.html
rcocean, yes we would. It is my understanding his conduct did not involve damage to any property. It may not have even involved trespassing if the area was open by the owners to members of the public. I agree his conduct was disrespectful towards a particular group of people, and if I were his parent he would pay a price for that disrespect. The same price he would pay for similarly disrespectful conduct towards anyone else. However, expressions of disrespect or contempt are protected by the First Amendment against state sanction.
Sounds like a hate crime to me. No doubt if he did this to synagogue or a mosque, we wouldn’t be discussing “freedom of Speech”.
A part of Benjamin Franklin’s creed says, “That the soul of man is immortal, and will be treated with justice in another life respecting its conduct in this.”
And Mahatma Gandhi said, “Before the throne of the Almighty, man will be judged not by his acts but by his intentions. For God alone reads our hearts.”
This young man’s actions while repugnant, should be protected up to the point they violate the unalienable rights of another. Give him a broom and trash barrel and have him walk in front of the last float at the next Christmas parade. Any further punishment will come at the appropriate time.
If Christians obeyed the Second Commandment and had not made a graven image of the living Lord we would not be having this conversation.
I speak as a born-again Christian who loves the Lord Jesus Christ. What the kid did was disrespectful and in poor taste, but it should not be a crime. Believe me, God is big enough to take care of himself, and what he really wants is our faith in Him, not worshipping a statue. I would challenge the law on Establishment Clause and vagueness grounds.
Not everything that is immoral has to be a crime.
A non-sequitur, assuming arguendo that the statute were valid as applied, and I don’t believe that inasmuch as I opine that its clearly overbroad, the statute would still apply to this individual’s conduct if he were an agent of a corporation, ie. if the corporation were vicariously liable for his actions, that fact wouldn’t excuse the conduct.
If corporations have free speech and religious rights, I would think this guy’s artistic statement would be protected, other than possible trespassing issues.
Oh geee let’s hope the terrible Russians don’t get wind and start all that Pussy Rioting nonsense that we did to them when those talentle$$ slut$ went on the CIA managed rampage in Orthodox Russia’s holiest of holies. Of course that there Rusky “Jesus” would hardly be the same as our Mercan Jesus…or?
If the state wants to risk this matter going to the appellate level and the statute being struck down as being unconstitutionally vague then it will suffer the benefits of doing so. Wasting a lot of time and resources for a predictable outcome, not to mention the possibility of the legislature needing to enact corrective law.
This is another example of rushing to a criminal prosecution for something that is truly not worth the effort and as a result the situation mushrooms into a large ordeal. It would have just been better to not go down this road.
The UK does not have the freedom of speech we have in the US. No one does.