Why would a kid get arrested for this

[BSmack]

Remember Obama's comments about people in PA who "cling to guns and religion?"

There's your first clue.

[mvscal]

He was arrested because his behavior is a 2nd degree misdemeanor in the state of Pennsylvania.

[mvscal]

Poptart probably won't agree with this, but I do.

Needless to say, both you and your atheist fundie source are clueless idiots.

Furthermore, outrage should be focused on the many examples of priests actually doing that to children instead of this teenager.

Are you trying to say that there is no outrage on that score? Seriously?

[Moving Sale]

He was arrested because his behavior is a 2nd degree misdemeanor in the state of Pennsylvania.

"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."

[mvscal]

He was arrested because his behavior is a 2nd degree misdemeanor in the state of Pennsylvania.

"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."

Yes, his action quite clearly meet the elements of the offense.

[Moving Sale]

Do tell.

[BSmack]

Yes, his action quite clearly meet the elements of the offense.

The offense is clearly unconstitutional. You have no right to impose your sensibilities on others. At worst, if the statue is on church property, he is guilty of simple trespass, no more.

[Left Seater]

Prolly cause he was dumb enough to post that pic on the face books.

[mvscal]

The offense is clearly unconstitutional.

Wrong.

You have no right to impose your sensibilities on others.

Every single law on every single book is nothing more or less than the forcible imposition of community sensibilities.

[mvscal]

An artist can create "art" of the crucifixion in piss.

Not in the state of Pennsylvania...assuming he wasn't defacing his own personal property.

[Moving Sale]

An artist can create "art" of the crucifixion in piss.

Not in the state of Pennsylvania...assuming he wasn't defacing his own personal property.

Jsc clearly stated he was creating the piss art so he can clearly desecrate it once he is finished.

[Moving Sale]

You may know about smoked paprika...

From my reading of the cooking forum he doesn't know shit about smoked paprika either.

[mvscal]

You may know about smoked paprika, but you don't know a fucking thing about constitutional law. Government cannot prohibit speech like Pennsylvania is attempting to do. This is not a close issue.

You don't seem to know shit about anything. You can't walk onto church (or synagogue or mosque etc) property, piss all over it and call it speech, dumbfuck.

[Moving Sale]

Hitting the cooking sherry a bit to hard today eh Ofailure? Nobody said you can walk onto private property and piss on it. Nice strawman though.

[mvscal]

Nobody said you can walk onto private property and piss on it.

Gaysc clearly implied such when he asserted that the kid's action was "protected speech" and then proceeded to equate it with piss christ.

Of course you're both total idiots.

[Smackie Chan]

“Desecration of a Venerated Object” crime is complete bullshit, even those with a understanding of basic civics should be able to see that.

In that case, I'll wait for a ruling from smackaholic.

[Shlomart Ben Yisrael]

This clearly is protected speech.

Speech is protected. Trespassing certainly isn't.

[mvscal]

...it likely will be found void for vagueness.

Now that is a legitimate legal argument to make.

There is no constitutional issue here. He was not "speaking" nor is there any establishment argument to make.

[Diego in Seattle]

...it likely will be found void for vagueness.

Now that is a legitimate legal argument to make.

There is no constitutional issue here. He was not "speaking" nor is there any establishment argument to make.

Nor is one "speaking" when they make a campaign contribution, either.

[Dinsdale]

Nor is one "speaking" when they make a campaign contribution, either.

Correct, in that it is considered "sppech" (even though they mean "expression," which the Oregon state Constitution differentiates between, which apparently isn't the norm).

This is what allow Soros and the unions to buy elections. (Soros uses "foundations" to do his dirty work, while outspending the Koch's by about 10-1... don't hear too many lefties bitching about it, though.)


And I laugh at the Citizen's United haters... it was a redundant decision, supporting a precedent that was established ~195 years ago.

[Moving Sale]

Nice spelling. Sppech?
Nice grammar. Allow?
Nice facts. "When it comes to the combination of institutional lobbying, 527 group donations and PAC expenditures, Koch Industries far out-spends Soros’ hedge fund and think tank, $57.4 million to $12.8 million. Most of this money is attributable to lobbying expenditures."

Nice ditch you are digging for yourself.