We were unable to load Disqus. If you are a moderator please see our troubleshooting guide.

Anonymous NTX • 4 years ago

You commenters are amateurs.

The maker and possessor of this statue is in violation of Exodus 20:4 and should subsequently be Punished as it was in the day of Moses.

The idiot who got caught, go pick up garbage or something and be productive.

Suzanne Coffey Piercy • 5 years ago

A couple of years late but just read this today. ..Good! No time like the present to learn some respect for other people's property. . If a 14 year old boy knows all about oral sex then he knows it's not a public act . Even with a stone statue. If it were a Stone dog or lion etc. he would never have given it a second thought. His intention was to desecrate and dirty an image of Jesus. Jesus said I will not be mocked, didn't give an age limit. Maybe next time he will pass by the statue and just go on home. Who was taking the pics? Not him. He's the kind to walk up and piss on the Vietnam wall, or crap on the graves in Arlington cemetery when he is about 16. Nip it in the bud!

Jaymo • 5 years ago

evolution in reverse here?

Birra • 5 years ago

ma porco dio

M3D1T8R • 5 years ago

That'll teach the kid to post stuff on Facebook.

spaghettimonsterfan • 5 years ago

This boy acted a fool and his parents need to deal with him not the law. I am surprised how many comments there are about pros and cons of spelling correcters.

Michael • 5 years ago

The law didnt establish any religion in a illegal way. What separation of church and state means is congress cant establish one official religion for the nation and make people practice that one religion. Holy crap...you would think its rocket surgery or something.

Mary • 5 years ago

Wow. Come on, Christians. Even you have to admit that jailtime is too ridiculously excessive for a "crime" this petty. To think our jail system lets murderers and rapists out on a daily basis to make room for minor offenses and people who dare to believe in something other than the status quo.

Mike • 5 years ago

Forget prison, please sterilize this brain-dead fratboy so he can't reproduce and bring any more boorish white-trash losers into the world like himself. That is just all sorts of wrong *smh*

lk66 • 5 years ago

He didn't damage, deface or physically mistreat the statue---it was unharmed. Yes, it
"outraged the sensibilities" of some people, but really, if outraging the sensibilities of people who chose to pay attention to something one does with an inanimate object is a crime, a whole lot of people should be in jail. It certainly "outrages my sensibilities" that people wave guns and weapons around....maybe we should file charges against them for outraging the sensibilities of sensible people....

GibbyD • 5 years ago

False story . The young person faces only a few hours of community service and probation . If this was his own statue and or on his own property , then his 1st amendment rights would protect him . The DA IS NOT saying there will be ANY jail-time . Without this law, what would stop , for example , Muslims standing in line waiting to each desecrate publicly displayed objects of veneration such as The Lincoln memorial , the statue of Martin Luther King and or any monuments representing cherished ideas and people ?

NoFightingInTheWarRoom • 5 years ago

There's no way the kid will go to jail, the Constitution prevents that. Also, the statute seems to be only for actual damage or harm done to the statue.

Jr • 5 years ago

Really, isn't there better things to worry about ... so what, he's making a joke he is a kid when he gets older I'm sure he is going to see he was being immature. I think it is really not something that people should really be worried about.

Adam • 5 years ago

I'm a Christian, and the "offense" Doesn't bother me but the punishment does. It's clearly a case of being a stupid teenager, and it saddens me how easily upset people are.

falcon • 5 years ago

Statutory rape is a serious crime.

Mark Duwe • 5 years ago

To be serious, the law is actually opposed to free speech because it makes it against the law to express yourself in a way that upsets other people, when as we know, that is exactly what the right to free speech is all about.

Mark Duwe • 5 years ago

If SNL did this who would get arrested?

Gary • 5 years ago

The most this kid can be accused of is trespassing.

LixBugz • 5 years ago

I predict this will get tossed on some sort of appeal. The ACLU or some such will hopefully get involved since there isn't anything worth sending anyone to jail over happening here. There was no damage and no one was hurt. This law is criminalization for the sake of itself.

BobSmith77 • 5 years ago

He should have gave it a 'hot carl' instead.

Mitchell • 5 years ago

He's gorgeous, and the picture's a hoot! Too bad he's jailbait!

Mike • 5 years ago

for being 14 he is actually NOT cute -- looks more like a 50 y/o trailer park resident unfortunately *lol*

Mark Rutherford • 5 years ago

I think Jesus should be prosecuted for child abuse in this case.
(Sarcasm font in place)

Gary • 5 years ago

Amen, given all the priestly pedofiles it is long past due for a sex offender registry in heaven

Gary • 5 years ago

It was a silly sophmoric joke that uptight, pseudo-pious, anal retentive, my way or the highway, hypocrites are up in arms about. It is the unpopular opinion, the minority view, that the constitution was designed to protect. The popular view benefits from the protection as well...but it doesn't need it. Yet another reason to be ashamed of the majority of Americans that can't look past their own thoughts and opinions to allow the freedom we were promised but never actually got.

Anthony McCarthy • 5 years ago

Yeah, and if I could turn tinfoil into gold I'd like things a lot more than I do.

The fact is that no matter how much people wish it were so, people who are offended by stuff like this vote and they can provide the winning margin for candidates who will appoint judges such as the Republican-fascists on the Supreme Court who give us decisions like Hobby-Lobby, endangering real rights that are really important while alleged leftists champion the "rights" of 14-year-old boys to make obnoxious jerks of themselves.

He should get 40 hours of community service to serve as an example to other would-be obnoxious jerks and to get some garbage picked up or something.

Gary • 5 years ago

You describe the problem fairly accurately, and then you fall into the same trap. These things should not be subject to votes (mob rule). We are not a Democracy; we are a Republic - with democratic aspects.

Jefferson said, "The LEGITIMATE powers of government are limited to only such acts as are injurious to others". He goes on to give an example, "It makes no difference if my neighbor has twenty gods or no god, it neither picks my pocket, nor breaks my leg".

How does this childish act do any actual harm to anyone?

Anthony McCarthy • 5 years ago

The fact is that presidents appoint Supreme Court justices and judges who are the ones who, ultimately, decide what the constitution and laws mean.

You will forgive me if I don't take what a slave holder such as Jefferson says about legitimate powers of government in relation to injury to others particularly seriously.

No matter what you or Jefferson say about the legitimate powers of government, people vote, they don't vote solely on the basis of some idealistic view of the first amendment, they vote on the basis of who pisses them off and who doesn't offend them. It has been the particular stupidity of people who pretend that they are on the left that they will choose to champion the stupidest, possible things which will piss people off while ignoring real issues that are important. Republicans count on that form of stupidity and have ridden it to success while doing far more damage on important issues.

If I could make a choice between the "right" of stupid 14-year-old boys to simulate getting head from a statue and the most banal of welfare programs, what led to the welfare program would win my support 100% of the time. That is the difference between a real liberal, in the traditional American sense of the word and a play leftist of the kind who led the left into the political wilderness about 50 years ago. I'd date that from about the date of the Sullivan decision, the protection of political lies which was widely supported by the play left but which has, mostly, had the effect of destroying political careers of promising liberal politicians and issues of vital interest to the left. Free speech absolutism is the stupidest ruse that the left has fallen for in living memory.

Gary • 5 years ago

You are talking about what is, I am talking about what was supposed to be. I never claimed our founders were not hypocrites and self serving opportunists, but the political system they devised (and didn't adhere to) was and is an amazing thing, or would be if givin a chance.

As Wilde (?) said, " I'm not sure America was ever actually discovered, it was merely detected"

Anthony McCarthy • 5 years ago

What is is what is, what was supposed to be doesn't exist. Our politics, our lives, our rights and our moral responsibilities confront what is, not what isn't.

Gary • 5 years ago

So, when our constitution and founding principles are bastardized and corrupted we are supposed to just accept it and move on under the new rules? I don't accept that, what is does not equate with what is right.

Anthony McCarthy • 5 years ago

There is no founding principle of the American government higher than that the person who wins a majority of the votes in an election takes the office and one of those is the president who appoints Supreme Court justices who decide what The Constitution means.

The Constitution was a "new rule" that contained and still contains considerable corruption. The infamous 3/5ths provision, the disenfranchisement of most of the population, slavery, the anti-democratic Senate, the stinking electoral college. etc. Considering the fact that the present day Supreme Court as the previous two did, are using "free speech" to subvert the right of The People to a government that is the result of free and accurately informed choice of a majority in favor of corporate oligarchy, with the full support of the ACLU, the likes of Joel Gora and the rest of the "free speech" industry, I'm not enthusiastic for your interpretation of that constitution any more than Antonin Scalias.

Prairie_W • 5 years ago

Of course it's ridiculous. And in the end, the "legal" and "religious" tut-tuts end up obliterating any remaining respect for religion and for our law enforcement..

alex • 5 years ago

The klu klux klan can openly speak about wanting the death of minorities with out being jailed Yet this kid goes to jail for a stupid joke that is his right to make. So much for the idea of freedom of speech.

Anthony McCarthy • 5 years ago

I've got no problem with silencing the KKK or the Nazis or any other group that advocates violating the civil rights of other people. I figure advocating the loss or rights for others should have loss of rights as a penalty.

Gary • 5 years ago

It is the unpopular view that the Bill of Rights are designed to protect. I don't like what these hate mongers say, but I don't claim the right to gag them. Mere words do no actual harm to anyone.....your comment sets you up as the thought police.......you're wrong.

Anthony McCarthy • 5 years ago

If I have to choose between the Bill of Rights for those who negate the Bill of Rights and the victims of KKK members or Nazis, I will support the rights of their victims every, single time.

It is one of the most disgusting spectacles, the preening self-righteousness of people who are in no danger from those who want to deprive other people of every right, including to breath and live, to choose the rights of the klansmen and the Nazis over the real rights of their intended victims. I've found that such preening, self-righteous folk are generally not those at very great risk.

Gary • 5 years ago

If someone has been a victim, I support their rights too. But words do no actual, concrete, harm......ever heard of sticks and stones?

Anthony McCarthy • 5 years ago

"words do no actual, concrete, harm"

Tell that to the people in Rwanda who were hacked to death and lost hands, arms, etc. because words were spoken that encouraged people to attack them. You can say the same thing about those who were murdered by the KKK, the Nazis, fascists, etc. throughout history. If those words had never been spoken people would not have been killed.

The line that "words do no actual, concrete, harm" are empty words. Words have power, as anyone who has ever uttered or written a word intended to persuade someone to do anything, good or bad, demonstrates they believe. It is a hypocritical stance for anyone who works in the media to take as they are in the business of changing behavior with their words, from anything from killing people to getting people to vote a certain way to getting them to buy something. There are no bigger hypocrites in the scribbling class than those who disavow the power of words to change things.

Gary • 5 years ago

You're being ridiculous in your adamancy. Go jump off a cliff.

Now, if you actually do jump off a cliff, that is your fault, not mine

Anthony McCarthy • 5 years ago

A typical play leftist who puts make believe over even the most recent lessons of history. Yet the left wonders why it can't elect a government and that Lyndon Johnson, a half a century ago, is the closest it can get to a liberal president.

Fred • 5 years ago

Two years in prison would cost on average $ 61200 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wik..., paid by you US taxpayers. It's damned expensive for a fake blowjob, whatever offending it is, in a country where nearly 50 millions of inhabitants live under the poverty line. Next time come to France for a real one, it's cheaper!

Doran Zeigler • 5 years ago

Wouldn't Jesus have forgiven him? I seem to remember a line from the pretentious and highly edited book that said, "Father, forgive them, they know not what they do."

If stupidity is now a crime, we would have to lock up the majority of the AmeriKKKan people, starting with our confused and compromised lawmakers.

Guest • 5 years ago
Doran Zeigler • 5 years ago

Right, a real person would have been better. Even a real dog would do.

Jesus Raped Mary • 5 years ago

Jesus was a Charlatan

Wes • 5 years ago

Your face is a charlatan.

Payton Blake • 5 years ago

"William Higgins, the district attorney of Bedford County, says he committed adultery but not a crime when he had sex with a woman in his courthouse office six weeks ago"

Sounds like the DA prosecuting the kid needs to do two years in jail for his own immoral actions.

johnny mars • 5 years ago

Idiotic......the law, that is. PA should stop shoving jeezus down our throats. The teen has First Amendment rights of expression, even as offensive to some as they are. Nothing was defaced.

Personally, I find war-criminal Bush's killing of a million citizens in the Middle East over oil and heroin control way more offensive. How did he and the PNAC jackals get away with it?

Roberta Shoemaker-Beal • 5 years ago

VERY POOR TASTE !!! For sure. But, criminal? Get real? There must be more to the story about this kid............