Oh jesus you naughty boy. Better luck next time.

[Chas]

I don't even think burning flags should be illegal

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?

There is no role for government in limiting speech that is offensive. It is the slipperiest of slopes.

You're offended? Tough shit.

You're going to whine about it? Grow the fuck up.

You're going to riot? You're going to get arrested or shot.

[freedeepthink]

I read the article, and I find it odd that what the boy wasn't charged with - trespassing - was the only real crime he committed.

I'll bet Jesus gives a lousy beej, anyway.

Boru

Holy Shit Boru. You made me laugh with the Beej comment.

[Jackalope]

350 hours of community service? I woulda at least had Jesus toss my salad for that.

[vorlon13]

Jesus used spittle to make the blind to see. I wonder what felching Him would cure ???

[HopOnPop]

I disagree - offending someone's sensibilities is not and should be a criminal offense.

There is no role for government in limiting speech that is offensive. It is the slipperiest of slopes.

You're going to riot? You're going to get arrested or shot.

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.

[Minimalist]

many courts (including SCOTUS) have long upheld the principle of holding the speaker criminally responsible for an outcome.

That decision has been overturned...even when it is correctly quoted as "falsely shouting fire in a crowded theater."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandenburg_v._Ohio

Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969), was a landmark United States Supreme Court case based on the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The Court held that government cannot punish inflammatory speech unless that speech is directed to inciting, and is likely to incite, imminent lawless action.[1] Specifically, it struck down Ohio's criminal syndicalism statute, because that statute broadly prohibited the mere advocacy of violence. In the process, Whitney v. California, 274 U.S. 357 (1927) was explicitly overruled, and doubt was cast on Schenck v. United States, 249 U.S. 47 (1919), Abrams v. United States, 250 U.S. 616 (1919), and Dennis v. United States, 341 U.S. 494

The case you are referencing was Schenck, which had been superseded by Whitney v California in 1927.

[HopOnPop]

That decision has been overturned...even when it is correctly quoted as "falsely shouting fire in a crowded theater."

Thanks for the corrections and info. However, this was merely one specific case (for which I never directly cited myself) and the overturning of it does not invalidate criminalization of what is coloquially called "FALSELY shouting fire in a crowded theatre" AKA, incitement to do violence, in the US. It merely narrowed the scope and reach of laws based upon the principle. There are still other cases in the US that uphold other forms of incitement as criminal. United States v Turner is a good example. Another lower court case from the same region (Chicago) was that of William White, who was recently sentenced to 3+ years for the act of inciting violence against others. I am sure there are many others too (but you can use Google as well as me).

But discussing the details of what does and doesn't constitute criminal incitement in the US is missing the point. The fact remains that societies from around the world , and throughout time, have often interpretted incitement to do violence (directly and indirectly) as wrong and worthy of some kind of punishment. I am (still) asserting that, in a small way, that face-humping Jesus in a Christian dominated town on the lawn of the church might be seen as falling along this spectrum *abeit in a very tiny way*....and thus a bit of community service does not seem out of line to me.

(Please someone restore my faith in atheism here by demonstrating they, at least, understand what I am saying -- and if you disagree give a REAL objection to this point I am making. So far, you all seem dogmatically determined to defend this kid simply because you all approve of his attitudes toward the supernatural <<-- yes, I am attempting to bait you, and I hope you all take it in good humor from the new guy who means it in a good natured way).

[Lemonvariable72]

You may find interesting that our beloved defender of the law Mr. Higgins once had sex with a mistress in his courtroom.

Funny, wasn't it jesus that said "let he who is without sin cast the first stone." Because thats one of the few redeeming passages in the buybull.

[Jenny A]

The law says what it says. And what is says is unconstitutional if interpreted the way the DA interprets it. What should have happened is that the boy's attorney should have brought up the First Amendment. The boy's parents probably had a hand in who that attorney was. Rather than showing up with signs the local atheists should have filed an amicus brief.

[Minimalist]

Thanks for the corrections and info. However, this was merely one specific case (for which I never directly cited myself) and the overturning of it does not invalidate criminalization of what is coloquially called "FALSELY shouting fire in a crowded theatre" AKA, incitement to do violence, in the US.

Not quite.

The original case (Schenk) had to do with pamphlets urging draft resistance during WWI. It was mere advocacy of an idea which was being upheld in Schenk. The later ruling in Brandenburg held that in order for the government to regulate speech ( as Chas hinted at above) you must be in the act of fomenting a riot... ( LET'S GET 'EM, BOYS!!!) In Brandenburg, the SC ruled that

The U.S. Supreme Court reversed Brandenburg's conviction, holding that government cannot constitutionally punish abstract advocacy of force or law violation.

so, it requires much more than mere "advocacy." You have to be getting ready to unleash the mob.

As an example, the laws against child pornography and sexual abuse are very stringent in the US...everywhere except in the Archbishop's house. Merely possessing a photo can result in jail. However, outfits like NAMBLA (National Man-Boy Love Association) are free to advocate for sex between adults and minors....as long as they don't do it.