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
Eileen, Penance of 3 Lord’s Prayers and 2 Hail Mary’s, and all is forgiven.
I don’t get the giant leap to assuming it was a hate crime. He’s a teenage boy. As others have pointed out, obnoxious could be part of the definition of teenager, along with thoughtless and disrespectful. Do you really think he gave it any more thought than, “this will be really funny”? Is there is evidence to suggest his intent was hateful?
If he is being charged merely because it is a religious statue, then the state has no business addressing the issue.
Here’s something to ponder … if he had posted no photo but instead had gone into the confession box with what he done, what would have been the outcome?
Eileen Ninetynine – have you stopped to think that the process that got the kid to “this would be very funny” is what constitutes the hate crime?
What about the conduct of the Roman Catholic Church that was “obnoxious and disgraceful” since the cult religion was formed?
kevin – I think you need to check the definition of cult.
The kid’s actions were rude, immaturre and insensitive, but the statute is unconstitutionally vague and overbroad. Besides, sensitivities were made to be outraged. If the kid takes a plea, it won’t be based on sound legal advice, but on community pressure.
In Winter Garden, Florida, a small town near Orlando, the mayor had a resident removed by the police from a city commission meeting several weeks ago. The gentleman’s offense was refusing to stand for the Pledge of Allegiance, a despicable act that apparently outraged the mayor’s sensitivities. Most tyranny is local.
@ Maxcat
I agree that this should be a non-issue.. BUT….here is the text of the law.
““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”
It doesn’t say that the object has to be damaged. Just physically mistreated. This could mean dressing the statue up, putting make up on it and simulating sexual acts. This would be….according to the law….desecration without actually damaging the item. Just like making offensive pictures of Mohammad is offensive to Muslims, without damaging anything physically. Personally…..I’m for the right to make the cartoons and as offended as I may be about the photo of the statue of Jesus…..I think that he has the right to make the photo. (Dumb as it is)
If you are going to use this for one object/statue/venerated item…then it needs to be equally applied to all instances.
The problem is that you are now in a very vague area where the right to express yourself can be suppressed because of people’s “sensibilities”. Our sensibilities do not trump the First Amendment. This is why people can burn the American Flag even though it offends the “sensibilities” of many. Having imaginary oral sex with Jesus is pretty offensive too. Maybe some people’s sensitivity to the Flag is as strong as Christian’s sensitivity to the oral sex with Jesus. Equal justice under the laws. We can’t pick and choose based on what we personally find objectionable. I personally find both objectionable….but….I didn’t write the laws and the courts found that burning the flag is acceptable.
So…on a law blog… we can agree that this is the wording of the law even though it doesn’t seem to make sense. Perhaps the law needs to be reviewed. Clarified and applied equally. Equal opportunity offensive offenders.
Also…people just need to lighten up.
DBQ
All things being equal (or unequal, as some religion’s desecration wouldn’t rise to this level of outrage), I’d go with the First Amendment, unless and until there is actual damage.
Still, this is, if the law is applied in the gray area where it can be, a great opportunity for community service at several religious orders.
This shows the difference between an idol and a spiritual teacher. The young man teaches that idols are not gods. They are projections of human ego. If you identify with either the statue or the young man, you create illusory ground and ensnare yourself.
Up next:
Arresting young girls for huliganism wearing balaclava’s singing protest songs from an alter in some American Cathederal…
I love it We have all lost our sense of humor of what it means to be young and dumb.
I wounder would the same approach be taken if it was a statue of Lucifer??
Besides what would Jesus do LOL
Wow, I’m as irreligious as they get, and that offended me. I don’t see how it is a criminal offense, but it sure is beyond bad taste. As for it being a “hate crime” as one suggested, doesn’t it have to injure someone?
maxcat – I know that mosques and synagogues are covered by ‘hate crimes.’ Why not a statue?
@Paul C. Schulte
I know they are covered if there is any damage. Was this statue damaged in any way? I would argue vigorously for a hate crime if the statue was marred in any way, regardless of the religious affiliation.
We need laws against being obnoxious.
Ex post facto.
gary – I have often thought retroactive abortion was a good idea, however, I cannot get anyone to go along with me. 🙂
If you don’t look at the picture it won’t offend you. Personally, I think it’s hilarious.
Corporal Canuck – the photo will be shown to the jury. Why shouldn’t I see for myself. The question is not whether I am offended, rather is it against the law. And I think it appears to be against the law.
It was rude and disrespectful. But it was the kind of rude and disrespectful that should result in getting grounded by his parents or writing an essay about respect and humor and how that can both be in the same sentence (and picture). If people wish to insult others beliefs, they should be identified and people can think what they wish about the character of that person. Siccing the law on them gives them a platform, but if the ‘humor’ is merely disseminated, then it gives everyone a look at the character of the person doing it without any reflexive justification of it being a free speech issue. Yes, he said what he thinks and he is a foolish young man who isn’t as funny as he thinks he is. But now he has somehow become the poster boy for free speech? (and OH! that’s what he wants to be remembered for when he is an actual adult and has to find a job or teach his kids manners!)
It was a stupid arrest. Show the kids face in a billboard doing that. That’s free speech too! Want the father of the woman you want to marry to see what kind of a person you are? How about potential employers? Now, since he is charged and a minor, HE is protected.
Michelle – given the statute they are arresting him under I think they have a case. He is lucky he won’t be labelled for life as a sex offender.
I agree with Lee. Stupid teenage prank, but not against the law, unless it’s trespassing. Leave it to the parents to handle.
Leave it up to a bunch of lawyers to make a “federal case” out of a teenager’s stupid, tasteless prank. Discipline should be meted out by his parents. And their response will play a major part in his transition from kid to adult.
Although, he’s already showing a tendency toward a specific profession…
Barkin’ Dog…your 9:37 am post was damn funny.
Once again….. American culture seems to be focused on punishment, revenge , vengeance , “be meaner than the next guy”
Grrr. Statute the first time not statue both times. Darn auto correcting program.
DBQ, PC people think there is an Amendment SOMEWHERE, that says people, err, certain people, have a right to not of offended. They can kiss my ass right downtown!! And, I’m just warming up.
“His conduct was obnoxious and disgraceful. Unfortunately, those terms could be in the dictionary under “teenager.”
Truly. While I find his actions distasteful and really pretty stupid, it does seem overkill to charge him with desecration.
HOWEVER…under the letter of the law “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”. It does seem that he desecrated the statue. If it were a statue of another religious figure, Mohammed (I know…..no statues….ok a Koran then) or a respected cultural icon such as ML King and the statue was treated like the Cardiff Kook (very funny photos btw) people would be screaming about the outrage to the sensibilities. Is this law is applied equally to all offensive and outrageous actions? Or have they just picked this one instance?
Perhaps Pennsylvania should reconsider rewording and clarifying their statue and how it affects the statues. 🙂 And consider the First Amendment was not written to protect our sensibilities.