Note: this article contains
dead links, the url is still in the hover/alt text. Keep the web working, curate content well!
This is an Boing Boing & :on First Amendment rights no matter how you look at it (via
On February 3, 2006, Judge Punch heard testimony in the case. Jeff entered into evidence 16 exhibits taken from the Internet, 12 of which are photographs of the SubGenius event, X-Day. Kohl has never attended X-Day and is not in any of the pictures. Rachel is depicted in many of these photos, often wearing skimpy costumes or completely nude, while participating in X-Day and Detroit Devival events.
The judge, allegedly a very strict Catholic, became outraged at the photos of the X-Day parody of Mel Gibson’s movie The Passion of the Christ — especially the photo where Jesus [Steve Bevilacqua] is wearing clown makeup and carrying a crucifix with a pool-noodle dollar sign on it while being beaten by a crowd of SubGenii, including a topless woman with a “dildo”.
Judge Punch lost his temper completely, and began to shout abuse at Rachel, calling her a “pervert, “mentally ill,” “lying,” and a participant in “sex orgies.” The judge ordered that Rachel is to have absolutely no contact with her son, not even in writing, because he felt the pictures of X-Day performance art were evidence enough to suspect “severe mental illness”
Mock Christianity, lose your kid… yeesh.
Here’s a pop-quiz question for all the Christian apologists who are bound to flood into this discussion: If this had taken place before an Islamic judge in the Middle East and the photos had been an art performance mocking the prophet Muhammed; and the judge took custody away from the mother based on that alone… would you also defend that judge?
Update: MeFi’s first comment has a bunch of updates, most importantly links to some of the photos that apparently angered the judge so much. Am I the only one who thinks this is relatively tame considering the reaction of the judge?