Switch Theme:

Possibly 2 years for 14 year old who got head from Jesus  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
  • No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
  • Times and dates in your local timezone.
  • Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
  • Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
  • Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.




Made in gb
Lord Commander in a Plush Chair





Beijing

In the UK at least, trespass is mostly a civil matter. You have to refuse to leave when asked before it becomes an issue, and even then there has to be actual damage before damages can be pursued. Continual trespass can be dealt with via nuisance laws. You're not going to end up in court for trespass on one occasion unless you do something stupid like sneak into MoD property.
   
Made in nl
Pragmatic Primus Commanding Cult Forces






 Hordini wrote:
 Iron_Captain wrote:

And freedom of expression does not mean freedom to be disrespectful towards and deliberately offend others.



Actually yeah, it totally does.
Such a barbaric country...
Tell me, why do you like offending others so much? Why do you think it should be allowed to desecrate religious symbols purely for the purpose of insulting religious people?

Error 404: Interesting signature not found

 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut






Leerstetten, Germany

 Howard A Treesong wrote:
In the UK at least, trespass is mostly a civil matter. You have to refuse to leave when asked before it becomes an issue, and even then there has to be actual damage before damages can be pursued.


It's a criminal charge here regardles of damages I think.

But before you can be charged with it you have to either:

1) Be somewhere the public has access to and stay there after you were asked to leave.
2) Be somewhere that is posted with "no trespassing" signs.
3) Be in a place where it is obvious that it is not open to the public (if you had to jump a fence to be there, then you are probably trespassing).

I don't think any of these apply to the kid. If he goes back there now after it is clear that he is not welcome there it would probably stick.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Iron_Captain wrote:
 Hordini wrote:
 Iron_Captain wrote:

And freedom of expression does not mean freedom to be disrespectful towards and deliberately offend others.



Actually yeah, it totally does.
Such a barbaric country...
Tell me, why do you like offending others so much?


Freedom.

We are free to speak out mind. Which means we don't get beat by cops for singing a song that our President doesn't like. People are free to be disrespect and offend religious people. Religious people are free to disrespect and offend non-religious people.

It's not because we like offending people. It's because we like a system that allows the government to repress free speech less than we like a system that lets people offend others.

Why do you think it should be allowed to desecrate religious symbols purely for the purpose of insulting religious people?


I don't think anybody is actually arguing that you should be able to do that.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/09/14 10:39:54


 
   
Made in gb
Avatar of the Bloody-Handed God






Inside your mind, corrupting the pathways

 Iron_Captain wrote:
 Hordini wrote:
 Iron_Captain wrote:

And freedom of expression does not mean freedom to be disrespectful towards and deliberately offend others.



Actually yeah, it totally does.
Such a barbaric country...
Tell me, why do you like offending others so much? Why do you think it should be allowed to desecrate religious symbols purely for the purpose of insulting religious people?


It is not a question of protecting the right to offend, but about ensuring protections are applied evenly. One should not be able to shut down any negative comments by playing the "offensive" card. Traditionally religion has held a lot of protections above and beyond those enjoyed by other things (at least, if you were the right religion). Thankfully the law has, generally, moved to a more equal level of protection for all groups.

   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut






Burtucky, Michigan

 Hordini wrote:
It was disrespectful, but he shouldn't be facing any jail time for something that did literally no damage, much less something as ridiculous as two years.


Completely agreed. This is just bananas
   
Made in nl
Pragmatic Primus Commanding Cult Forces






 d-usa wrote:

Why do you think it should be allowed to desecrate religious symbols purely for the purpose of insulting religious people?


I don't think anybody is actually arguing that you should be able to do that.
So you think there should be laws against desecration of religious objects?

Error 404: Interesting signature not found

 
   
Made in gb
Avatar of the Bloody-Handed God






Inside your mind, corrupting the pathways

 Iron_Captain wrote:
 d-usa wrote:

Why do you think it should be allowed to desecrate religious symbols purely for the purpose of insulting religious people?


I don't think anybody is actually arguing that you should be able to do that.
So you think there should be laws against desecration of religious objects?


The point being "desecration" should be covered under existing laws, such as vandalism, not be a law that essentially applies only to protection of religious items.

   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut






Leerstetten, Germany

 SilverMK2 wrote:
 Iron_Captain wrote:
 d-usa wrote:

Why do you think it should be allowed to desecrate religious symbols purely for the purpose of insulting religious people?


I don't think anybody is actually arguing that you should be able to do that.
So you think there should be laws against desecration of religious objects?


The point being "desecration" should be covered under existing laws, such as vandalism, not be a law that essentially applies only to protection of religious items.


Exactly.

Religious objects should have all the same protections that non-religious objects have.
   
Made in nl
Pragmatic Primus Commanding Cult Forces






 d-usa wrote:
 SilverMK2 wrote:
 Iron_Captain wrote:
 d-usa wrote:

Why do you think it should be allowed to desecrate religious symbols purely for the purpose of insulting religious people?


I don't think anybody is actually arguing that you should be able to do that.
So you think there should be laws against desecration of religious objects?


The point being "desecration" should be covered under existing laws, such as vandalism, not be a law that essentially applies only to protection of religious items.


Exactly.

Religious objects should have all the same protections that non-religious objects have.
I see your point, but I have to disagree with it. Religious items carry extreme emotional value for large groups of people and should therefore warrant extra protection. The same should apply to non-religious symbols that carry great emotional value to large groups of people, such as memorials.

Error 404: Interesting signature not found

 
   
Made in gb
Avatar of the Bloody-Handed God






Inside your mind, corrupting the pathways

 Iron_Captain wrote:
I see your point, but I have to disagree with it. Religious items carry extreme emotional value for large groups of people and should therefore warrant extra protection. The same should apply to non-religious symbols that carry great emotional value to large groups of people, such as memorials.


So... How does one define whether something can join the exclusive level of protection enjoyed by religious items under your system? Does it need to have an action figure range and a TV show? And what about minor religious items that no one really cares about? Do they have to have a certain congregation before they get the big league protections, or does the mere association to religion automatically mean they are protected? And what about spiritual items which belong to groups which are not officially considered religions?

Far better just to treat everything the same under existing laws.

   
Made in jp
[MOD]
Anti-piracy Officer






Somewhere in south-central England.

 Iron_Captain wrote:
 d-usa wrote:

Why do you think it should be allowed to desecrate religious symbols purely for the purpose of insulting religious people?


I don't think anybody is actually arguing that you should be able to do that.
So you think there should be laws against desecration of religious objects?


There is such a law, that is why this 14-year-old is in threat of a two year prison sentence.

The problem with such a law is how to define desecration, religious, and objects.

For example to strict Protestants a statue like the one in the photo is a graven image and against the Bible. To Roman Catholics it is an object of religious veneration. To Jews, atheists, hindus, etc. it is has no meaning.

The statue itself suffered no harm. It is desecration only in the eyes of Roman Catholics, many of who would most likely count the act as a stupid prank rather than literal desecration.

Thus, the law that exists admits of numerous valid interpretations of the photo and the result in court will depend largely on who makes up the majority of the jury.

I'm writing a load of fiction. My latest story starts here... This is the index of all the stories...

We're not very big on official rules. Rules lead to people looking for loopholes. What's here is about it. 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut






Leerstetten, Germany

 Iron_Captain wrote:
 d-usa wrote:
 SilverMK2 wrote:
 Iron_Captain wrote:
 d-usa wrote:

Why do you think it should be allowed to desecrate religious symbols purely for the purpose of insulting religious people?


I don't think anybody is actually arguing that you should be able to do that.
So you think there should be laws against desecration of religious objects?


The point being "desecration" should be covered under existing laws, such as vandalism, not be a law that essentially applies only to protection of religious items.


Exactly.

Religious objects should have all the same protections that non-religious objects have.
I see your point, but I have to disagree with it. Religious items carry extreme emotional value for large groups of people and should therefore warrant extra protection. The same should apply to non-religious symbols that carry great emotional value to large groups of people, such as memorials.


If you physically damage something, you will be punished.
If you hurt the feelings of people, you won't be.

I am very religious. But my feelings about Jesus are not any more special under the law than the feelings of bronies.

I can burn my flag and I can burn my Bible and people can be offended, but that doesn't stop me from being able to do what I want with my property.
You can't burn my flag and you can't burn my Bible, because there are laws that stop you from being able to do what you want with my property.

Religious symbols and items are protected. Nobody is arguing that they shouldn't be. Current laws do a fine job. If the kids would have had his pants down and slapped the face of the statue he would have been arrested for indecent exposure. If he would have gathered a crowd of people that were pissed off and turned it into an angry mob he could have been arrested for creating a public disturbance or riot or something along that line. If he would have refused to stop doing that after he was asked to stop he could have been charged with trespassing. But dry-humping a statue in a public space while wearing clothes is not against the law.
   
Made in gb
Incorporating Wet-Blending





Wales: Where the Men are Men and the sheep are Scared.

 Iron_Captain wrote:
 Hordini wrote:
 Iron_Captain wrote:

And freedom of expression does not mean freedom to be disrespectful towards and deliberately offend others.



Actually yeah, it totally does.
Such a barbaric country...
Tell me, why do you like offending others so much? Why do you think it should be allowed to desecrate religious symbols purely for the purpose of insulting religious people?


You are calling free speech barbaric? Really?

No one has the right to not be offended.

Also do you really think this kid took the photo for the pure purpose of offending people. Or do you think he took a photo he thought was funny and didn't consider or care it would upset people.

Finally if people being offended is a punishable offence maybe Christians should be punished for saying pretty much everyone who isn't a Christian will be tourtured for eternity upon death. Pretty sure that's offensive to a lot of people. As is the belief of some Christians that you cannot be moral without god. You know what though that doesn't mean they should be punished for it even if though they often spend time in public preaching about how everyone who isn't them is going to hell. They have the right to that free speech no matter how offensive it is. Much like atheists have the right to say there is no god no matter who that upsets.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/09/14 11:25:26




 
   
Made in fr
Hallowed Canoness





 d-usa wrote:
Freedom.

You mixed the order. It is supposed to be Blue, then White, then Red.
 d-usa wrote:
Why do you think it should be allowed to desecrate religious symbols purely for the purpose of insulting religious people?

I don't think anybody is actually arguing that you should be able to do that.

I think it should be allowed. Just like you should be able to desecrate political symbols too.
 Iron_Captain wrote:
Religious items carry extreme emotional value for large groups of people and should therefore warrant extra protection. The same should apply to non-religious symbols that carry great emotional value to large groups of people, such as memorials.

So… items that carry extreme emotional value to large groups of people should warrant extra protection, irregardless of whether or not they are religious, from what you said. Hence no specific protection for religious symbols.
Now, I am one of the users that are pretty interested in what/how/when you define as great emotional value, or a large group.

"Our fantasy settings are grim and dark, but that is not a reflection of who we are or how we feel the real world should be. [...] We will continue to diversify the cast of characters we portray [...] so everyone can find representation and heroes they can relate to. [...] If [you don't feel the same way], you will not be missed"
https://twitter.com/WarComTeam/status/1268665798467432449/photo/1 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut






Leerstetten, Germany

I am a member of the Church of Dakka, in fact I'm a Dakka Clergy Member.

You fethers are desecrating my OT!!!
   
Made in gb
Avatar of the Bloody-Handed God






Inside your mind, corrupting the pathways

 d-usa wrote:
I am a member of the Church of Dakka, in fact I'm a Dakka Clergy Member.

You fethers are desecrating my OT!!!


*dry humps your monitor and uploads it to dakka discussions*

Bwahaha!

   
Made in gb
Stealthy Warhound Titan Princeps





South Wales

Silver is now undergoing a four year stretch in the county gaol.

Prestor Jon wrote:
Because children don't have any legal rights until they're adults. A minor is the responsiblity of the parent and has no legal rights except through his/her legal guardian or parent.
 
   
Made in au
Terminator with Assault Cannon






brisbane, australia

It's a statue.
It is the same as if someone dry-humped a statue of Ronald McDonald.

*Insert witty and/or interesting statement here* 
   
Made in fr
Trazyn's Museum Curator





on the forum. Obviously

What's funny is that I do believe that may have happened at some point. I remember reading an article about some statue getting lucky.
Not sure if it was dry humping though.

What I have
~4100
~1660

Westwood lives in death!
Peace through power!

A longbeard when it comes to Necrons and WHFB. Grumble Grumble

 
   
Made in au
Terminator with Assault Cannon






brisbane, australia

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
What's funny is that I do believe that may have happened at some point. I remember reading an article about some statue getting lucky.
Not sure if it was dry humping though.

five minutes in MS paint later.


Please don't attach non wargaming images to Dakka.

If you wish to share any such image you need to host it elsewhere and link to it.
Reds8n

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2014/09/14 13:56:41


*Insert witty and/or interesting statement here* 
   
Made in gb
Avatar of the Bloody-Handed God






Inside your mind, corrupting the pathways

 MrDwhitey wrote:
Silver is now undergoing a four year stretch in the county gaol.


The extra two years were for simulating a simulated act :(

   
Made in au
Terminator with Assault Cannon






brisbane, australia

oh, right. sorry.

*Insert witty and/or interesting statement here* 
   
Made in fr
Trazyn's Museum Curator





on the forum. Obviously

 SilverMK2 wrote:
 MrDwhitey wrote:
Silver is now undergoing a four year stretch in the county gaol.


The extra two years were for simulating a simulated act :(


Wouldn't that be 4 years? I mean, if simulating an act is 2 years, then simulating an simulated act would be simulation squared, making it 4 years.
Because math.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/09/14 14:05:08


What I have
~4100
~1660

Westwood lives in death!
Peace through power!

A longbeard when it comes to Necrons and WHFB. Grumble Grumble

 
   
Made in au
Terminator with Assault Cannon






brisbane, australia

anyways, back on topic.
reading through this thread, I realize that the only people who care about this are the christians. no gak right? but think about it, if someone did this to, say, a statue of Buddha, the worst case scenario for that person would be a small fine, but because this statue is of "christian importance" the guy is in some serious trouble.

*Insert witty and/or interesting statement here* 
   
Made in us
Fixture of Dakka





This article discusses the case and the law behind it:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2014/09/12/desecration-of-venerated-objects/

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/09/14 14:15:53


 
   
Made in de
Joined the Military for Authentic Experience






Nuremberg

The law seems pretty vague. Like, it has to be worshipped by a "substantial segment" of the public. What is the legal definition of "substantial"?

Seems like it would be difficult to apply fairly. Kid should have been let off with a caution.

   
Made in gb
Avatar of the Bloody-Handed God






Inside your mind, corrupting the pathways

 Da Boss wrote:
Seems like it would be difficult to apply fairly. Kid should have been let off with a caution.


Personally I don't think the kid should have gained any attention from the authorities other than an initial investigation into any complaint that wads made. Mostly because I don't think the desecration law should exist

   
Made in nl
Pragmatic Primus Commanding Cult Forces






 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
 d-usa wrote:
Freedom.

You mixed the order. It is supposed to be Blue, then White, then Red.
Clearly wou mean: White, blue, red? СВОБОДА!!!
 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
 d-usa wrote:
Why do you think it should be allowed to desecrate religious symbols purely for the purpose of insulting religious people?

I don't think anybody is actually arguing that you should be able to do that.

I think it should be allowed. Just like you should be able to desecrate political symbols too.
Why?
 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
 Iron_Captain wrote:
Religious items carry extreme emotional value for large groups of people and should therefore warrant extra protection. The same should apply to non-religious symbols that carry great emotional value to large groups of people, such as memorials.

So… items that carry extreme emotional value to large groups of people should warrant extra protection, irregardless of whether or not they are religious, from what you said. Hence no specific protection for religious symbols.
Now, I am one of the users that are pretty interested in what/how/when you define as great emotional value, or a large group.
Those terms do not need to be defined, they are pretty much self-expanatory and would not be seen in the actual letter of the law. The protection would apply to religious buildings, statues and symbols, World War 2 memorials and cemetaries, historical monuments and buildings, memorials for disasters etc. In fact, in most countries, laws like this already exist.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/09/14 14:55:48


Error 404: Interesting signature not found

 
   
Made in gb
Assassin with Black Lotus Poison





Bristol

 the shrouded lord wrote:
It's a statue.
It is the same as if someone dry-humped a statue of Ronald McDonald.


This is extra humorous as, if Super Size Me is accurate, more children would recognise Ronald McDonald than Jesus.

Ronald McDonald is probably venerated more in the US than Jesus.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Iron_Captain wrote:
Those terms do not need to be defined, they are pretty much self-expanatory and would not be seen in the actual letter of the law. The protection would apply to religious buildings, statues and symbols, World War 2 memorials and cemetaries, historical monuments and buildings, memorials for disasters etc. In fact, in most countries, laws like this already exist.


In most countries this is defined within normal laws with a possible hate crime added on. We don't need extra super special protection when we already have laws covering it.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/09/14 15:01:02


The Laws of Thermodynamics:
1) You cannot win. 2) You cannot break even. 3) You cannot stop playing the game.

Colonel Flagg wrote:You think you're real smart. But you're not smart; you're dumb. Very dumb. But you've met your match in me.
 
   
Made in nl
Pragmatic Primus Commanding Cult Forces






 A Town Called Malus wrote:
 the shrouded lord wrote:
It's a statue.
It is the same as if someone dry-humped a statue of Ronald McDonald.


This is extra humorous as, if Super Size Me is accurate, more children would recognise Ronald McDonald than Jesus.

Ronald McDonald is probably venerated more in the US than Jesus.

These forums really are not good for my views on America

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:
Those terms do not need to be defined, they are pretty much self-expanatory and would not be seen in the actual letter of the law. The protection would apply to religious buildings, statues and symbols, World War 2 memorials and cemetaries, historical monuments and buildings, memorials for disasters etc. In fact, in most countries, laws like this already exist.


In most countries this is defined within normal laws with a possible hate crime added on. We don't need extra super special protection when we already have laws covering it.
Yes, as I said, we already have the special protection I was talking about, which is good. But some people here seem to disagree with that.
I was not talking about extra super special protection on top of the special protection already in place.

Error 404: Interesting signature not found

 
   
 
Forum Index » Off-Topic Forum
Go to: