RE: Oh jesus you naughty boy. Better luck next time.
October 6, 2014 at 5:32 am
(This post was last modified: October 6, 2014 at 5:41 am by genkaus.)
(October 5, 2014 at 7:36 pm)HopOnPop Wrote: In an ideal society, where people all behave rationally, yes, I would agree. But, in the real world where people behave..well, like humans...and there are a lot of different subgroups, each holding intractible sets of ideals that often conflict with other subgroup's intractible ideals -- you either have to 1) regulate what people believe (which is impossible when the ideal in question is intractible) or 2) regulate what people do (through legal governance and law) or 3) simply leave it alone and let violence errupt as it most certainly will. Of the three possibilities (or another that I perhaps failed to think of?), what would you propose a governing body to do when there is a predictably large swath of the population that will riot when they see a national flag burned, or an image of Muhammad degraded as the butt-end of a joke?
Obviously the governing body should 2) regulate what people do (through legal governance and law) and what they should regulate are the rioteers.
(October 5, 2014 at 9:39 pm)HopOnPop Wrote: Agreed, but this is not the legal/social principle I am working from. If all one can muster is, "I'm offended" there is no criminal act to be had. But when one can rightly assume a particular response from a given action of expression (like shouting fire in a crowded theatre), many courts (including SCOTUS) have long upheld the principle of holding the speaker criminally responsible for an outcome. Its also why white supremasist leaders who merely write books and give speeches have been successfully prosecuted for violent crimes committed by others inspired by such writings. It is also the reason why Charles Manson is in jail for murder even though he never committed any murders directly (that we know about).
Similar arguments can be made regarding other forms of speech, like when one burns a flag or desecrates a venerated figures in public in the wrong place at the wrong time (yes, context matters). The act may not be criminal, but the caused criminal actions produced in other people, can thus make the initial act partially punishable for the ensuing damages/crimes -- and I believe rightly so. I totally agree that this kind of legal precedent is a difficult row to hoe, hence why each case must be addressed individually, and hopefully anyone found guilty has a line or two of available appeals courts to re-consider their case.
Now, in the case of face-humping Jesus, clearly we aren't remotely in the same category as the crimes I used to illustrate the legal/social principle I am following, but nonetheless I can understand how a court might see this childish crime worth, at the very least, a slap on the wrist because of this principle.
Read my full post - no criminal charges should be made without there being tangible damages. In the examples you listed, there are actual damages.
As it stands, I don't think one person should be held guilty for the criminal actions of another even when there are actual negative consequences beyond "hurt feelings" - but that is a debate for another time.
In this case, there were no actual damages. Which is why is does not deserve even a literal slap on the wrist.
