- Joined
- Oct 12, 2009
- Messages
- 23,909
- Reaction score
- 11,003
- Location
- New Jersey
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian - Right
So you made a stupid statement since you can't back it up. You're the one that made the statement....Yes, and you are asking to prove a negative. That's like asking me to site the law that says I can legally say "Hobby Time" without going to jail. By default I'm correct unless you can show a law that says otherwise.
Can you show where gesturing to a statue is a sexual crime?
So you made a stupid statement since you can't back it up. You're the one that made the statement....
I can show you NJ (my states) criminal statues which do not require nudity;
New Jersey Statutes - Title 2C The New Jersey Code of Criminal Justice - 2C:14-2 Sexual assault. - New Jersey Attorney Resources - New Jersey Laws
I'll show NY criminal statues which do not require nudity;
Sexual Offenses in New York State Penal Law - Assault | Sarah Lawrence College
I'll show CA criminal statues which do not require nudity;
CA Codes (pen:240-248)
Isn't it easier just to say you made a mistake?
Unless he exposed himself in this case, I'm not sure how it would be a sexual crime, especially seeing as how all your links either state outright or strongly imply the involvement of a victim.
I agree. I've already said in this case his arrest is pretty far fetched. However, my statement to TNE was regarding a generalized statement which he cannot defend and rightly so. It was an ill informed statement.
It does when it is being done to an inanimate object.
I'm referring to this case. Do you think the kid should be put on the sexual predator list for gesturing a statue?
So you made a stupid statement since you can't back it up. You're the one that made the statement....
I can show you NJ (my states) criminal statues which do not require nudity;
New Jersey Statutes - Title 2C The New Jersey Code of Criminal Justice - 2C:14-2 Sexual assault. - New Jersey Attorney Resources - New Jersey Laws
I'll show NY criminal statues which do not require nudity;
Sexual Offenses in New York State Penal Law - Assault | Sarah Lawrence College
I'll show CA criminal statues which do not require nudity;
CA Codes (pen:240-248)
Isn't it easier just to say you made a mistake?
I agree. I've already said in this case his arrest is pretty far fetched. However, my statement to TNE was regarding a generalized statement which he cannot defend and rightly so. It was an ill informed statement.
Nope, I was completely correct in what I said.
All those links deal with assaults to a PERSON. All those links have person listed. Here's a hint, a statue isn't a person. Nice try, you fail.
I don't know since I'm not wrong you should be asking yourself that question. A statue isn't a person.
Nope, I was completely correct in what I said.
All those links deal with assaults to a PERSON. All those links have person listed. Here's a hint, a statue isn't a person. Nice try, you fail.
I don't know since I'm not wrong you should be asking yourself that question. A statue isn't a person.
I won't defend your ill informed statement why would I. I've already show proof nudity is not a requirement for sexual assault.Sorry it is YOU who cannot defend it.
At best this post desrves a bronze.
I won't defend your ill informed statement why would I. I've already show proof nudity is not a requirement for sexual assault.
You refuse to refute that information and now claim you won. :lamo How very sad.
But was it...statutory rape?
Ah...haha...hahahahaha.
Somebody already made that joke, didn't they.
I specifically have focused on your post #475 which stated:Now you are moving the goalposts. I said in THIS situation (i.e. the statue), there was even a post where I said it, where nudity IN THIS CASE WOULD be required. My god man do you not read posts? I can point you to the posts, but I can't make you think.
TheNextEra said:Unless he exposed himself, there would be NO sexual crime.
You have Google - look it up. I've provided my facts - you fail to rebut them. You accuse me of moving the goal posts when you actually did. :yawn: Anything else?TheNextEra said:Please show me where sexual assault against a statue is even possible.
But was it...statutory rape?
Ah...haha...hahahahaha.
Somebody already made that joke, didn't they.
Only after you said it applied to THIS specific situation - so factually you moved the goalposts didn't you. Tsk.tsk.
You have Google - look it up. I've provided my facts - you fail to rebut them. You accuse me of moving the goal posts when you actually did. :yawn: Anything else?
That would depend on laws concerning the distribution of obscene material, and whether the photographs constitutes obscenity.
My point was that the 1st amendment isn't a bulletproof defense against any legal ramifications you might encounter regarding the content of a photograph you distribute.
Was the statue offended? Has anyone bothered to ask the statue how it feels? Do you think that the statue will cope and learn to make it through the sexual assault?I specifically have focused on your post #475 which stated:
Only after you said it applied to THIS specific situation - so factually you moved the goalposts didn't you. Tsk.tsk.
You have Google - look it up. I've provided my facts - you fail to rebut them. You accuse me of moving the goal posts when you actually did. :yawn: Anything else?
It has nothing to do with gotchya anything it is a clarification of your misstatement, which is why I asked you for a citation right away.No I didn't, I clarrified my comment, I didn't change it. There is a difference. Too bad you're more conscerned with some sort of weak "Gotcha" than you are at discussion.
Pathetic on your part.
My links prove nudity is not required for a sexual assault to take place - that's what I've said from the beginning, it was correct then and it's correct now. :shrug:If you are talking about your links, I already refuted them. Everyone one of them talks about the victim being a PERSON. A Statue is NOT a person. I'll take your concession.
Was the statue offended? Has anyone bothered to ask the statue how it feels? Do you think that the statue will cope and learn to make it through the sexual assault?
The bottom line is this is the kind of dumb ass ****e that happens in third world Islamic countries. The yahoo's who are crying "offended" and those who are trying to hang this kid should be ashamed of themselves and need to get a hobby. There are all sorts of dumb ass laws that are still on the books that the don't get prosecuted because it's finally realized that they are dumb ass laws.That's not what I'm arguing.
I have no illusions about the first amendment being "bullet proof" as I'm well aware of exceptions to free speech. My problem with the definition of desecration, however, is that it can be applied so widely that essentially any instance of expression can live up the standard of the definition.
The picture isn't the violation. The picture is the evidence of a violation in progress. Would you claim an arrest based upon a video of a rape to be a violation of the first amendment?
Sorry, but no go. Desecration applies to both religious and non religious objects, so it is not an issue of religious freedom. Nor is this an issues of freedom of speech. As noted had the boy permission, or owned the statue, then a charge could be said to apply unconstitutionally by either of those reasons. But the law in and of itself really has no basis to be called unconstitutional.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?