Posted on 05/30/2012 9:51:48 AM PDT by JohnKinAK
I get what you are saying about merely “expressing an opinion” no matter how moronic the opinion. But then I would ask you how you might feel about NAMBLA?
So what if a leader of the NAMBLA organization expresses merely his own “opinion” that there is nothing wrong with adult men having sex with young boys? Even if that NAMBLA member has himself never admitted to or has ever been convicted of doing so himself, but actively advocates that others do so and also gives them explicit instructions on how and when and under what circumstances others can and should seduce young boys and rape them? Sure the other NAMBLA members are supposedly capable of making their own decisions but are you saying the person advocating such criminal behavior is in no way culpable?
Is that constitutionally protected Free Speech or is that actively advocating and abetting criminal behavior?
I agree it’s a very fine line and one that should be considered very carefully and constitutionally and being somewhat Libertarian, I usually side with the civil liberties and free speech side of these sorts of issues.
But he wasn’t merely expressing his own opinion on child discipline, he was “instructing (his) church members and his own adult children to beat crying infants and toddlers with wooden spoons and dowels on their bare bottoms”.
Do I think that occasionally “smacking” an unruly toddler on the hand or across the butt equals child abuse? No. Do I and most rational and right thinking people think that “beating” a two month old infant or toddler with a wooden dowel or spoon or any other object for simply crying is child abuse? Yes. Was he instructing and advocating members of his family and his church to engage in child abuse? If he was truly advocating and instructing others to “beat” and not merely spank toddlers and two month old infants, it sure would seem so.
“Is that constitutionally protected Free Speech”
Yes. Suggest you research the recent SCOTUS Westboro Baptist Church case and pay particular attention to this quote:
Chief Justice John Roberts:
“Speech is powerful. It can stir people to action, move them to tears of both joy and sorrow, and — as it did here — inflict great pain. On the facts before us, we cannot react to that pain by punishing the speaker.”
Likely this gets overturned on appeal.
Agreed. See post # 62.
What Justice Roberts was talking about regarding WBC was their protected free speech to demonstrate at the funerals of US soldiers while expressing a religious belief (or some would also argue a political POV as well). While standing around with signs saying “Thank God for Dead Soldiers” is inflicting great emotional pain to the families and is vile and contemptible in my opinion, what the WBC wasn’t doing was saying, “Do Like God Does And Go Out And Kill A Soldier And Members Of Their Families, These People Over There In Particular”. The first is protected free speech, the second; well it may still be protected free speech but is questionable and borderline. In the first they are expressing an opinion; if they said the second, they’d be advocating commission of a violent crime.
See my post #61. Is there a difference if a NAMBLA member advocates child sex rape and instructs others on how to do it, but doesn’t actually commit child rape himself?
Or think of it this way, a Mafia Boss may be correct in saying “I never killed anybody in my life” but if after expressing the opinion that “Vinny the Bagman is scum and a snitch and should die”, he actually instructs members of his family to kill Vinny, he is not at that point merely exercising free speech even if he himself does not pull the trigger.
Also consider that as Norseman pointed out, this was not simple spanking. And from the article he posted: “…Caminiti knew it was illegal, because he had advised his flock not to punish their children this way in public places because it might be seen as abuse.” And “Also facing child abuse charges are Caminiti's son and daughter-in-law, Matt and Alina; his daughter and son-in-law Maria and Timothy Stephenson; and Timothy and Andrea Wick. Some of them testified under immunity agreements during Philip Caminiti's trial.”
If his own children and other members of his church testified that Caminiti told them to beat their children and told them to do so in private so as not avoid child abuse charges, I think this is probably what got prosecutors a conviction on conspiracy to commit child abuse and not of committing child abuse himself.
Likely this gets overturned on appeal.
You’re probably right and after giving it some additional thought, it perhaps should be. However what made me a bit angry were the not so much the folks who were defending his right to say that two month old infants should be beaten for crying, but those seemingly supporting that what he said was not only free speech under the guise of religion but that he was correct in saying so.
How I feel has nothing to do with it. This is not a matter of feeling, but a matter of constitutionally protected rights. Talk is one thing actions something else again. You and I are offended by NAMBLA. The majority of New Yorkers are offended by the Right to bear arms. Should That right be removed because a large segment of the population doesn't like it? Also note that the very first amendment in the BOR is the one dealing with free speech.
You can't make an exception to free speech because some idiot says something outrageous after all everything is outrageous to someone.
“Or think of it this way, a Mafia Boss may be correct in saying “I never killed anybody in my life” but if after expressing the opinion that “Vinny the Bagman is scum and a snitch and should die”, he actually instructs members of his family to kill Vinny, he is not at that point merely exercising free speech even if he himself does not pull the trigger.”
Then Caminiti would have had to have done a lot more than he did, more in the way of criminal intent, which would be a direct instruction to one of his members to go above and beyond what the law limits as far as discipline is concerned and order a specific act of physical abuse on a specific child that is excessive beyond what the law allows, which involves conspiring with an abuser and having that person act on his specific instructions to break the law and commit a specific violent act to the benefit of Caminiti himself. Just preaching about spanking like he did should not rise to that level. If an individual took Caminiti’s words and was excessive and broke the law, then that individual’s act should be prosecuted.
Then Caminiti would have had to have done a lot more than he did, more in the way of criminal intent, which would be a direct instruction to one of his members to go above and beyond what the law limits as far as discipline is concerned
<><><<
And this is why I think he got convicted, because he did exactly what you suggest above. An assumption, sure, like the rest of us posting here, we were privy to neither the evidence in the case nor the jury instructions provided by the judge.
I am not thinking he uttered his instructions from the pulpit (and as I understand it, they met in homes, there was no pulpit), but standing with his flock, dowel in hand, demonstrating exactly what we wanted to them to do, perhaps even threatening them in some fashion if they did not do as he said (hey everyone else is speculating, why not me?).
According to these articles, that’s exactly what he did, instruct and even demand that parents of his “church” and his own family follow his examples and instructions, that and along with former church members who reported the abuse and family members who testified that Caminiti instructed that the beatings shouldn’t take place outside of their homes, lest someone call the police and report child abuse, that IMO is what got him convicted.
Authorities began to investigate the church in November, according to the complaint. Authorities say Philip expressed his belief the Bible dictates the use of a rod to punish children. He stated children only a few months old are "worthy" of the rod and that by 1 1/2 months, a child is old enough to be spanked.
According to church members, Philip would instruct parents on how to use rods to spank children's buttocks. He stated he "likes the immediacy of spanking" and "pain is a good way to teach children." The complaint also states Philip said: "If you spank early and it is done right, then kids will be happy and obedient."
Punishments would often occur during worship services when children would start crying or fail to sit still. Former church member Merry Hahn told authorities, "Phil was very strict about children being quiet during church," the complaint states.
The parent "was told to hold the baby tight and say, 'No' very loudly close to the ear. If the baby did not quiet down, the parent removed the child to a bedroom, which was usually close enough to the living room where you could hear the dowel hitting the baby."
http://www.startribune.com/lifestyle/118691089.html?source=error
Then there is this:
John Caminiti told investigators in November he uses a rod or dowel on his two youngest children at home or at church and the scriptures make it clear his behavior is allowed.
He said he does not allow his family to communicate with people outside his religious beliefs and has punished his wife and son by shunning, or confining them to their rooms to have no contact with other family members, until they corrected their disobedience.
That to me sounds more like a tyrannical monster and control freak, perhaps even the head of a cult than any sort of man of God.
While I don’t have a problem with a parent occasionally smacking a child on the hand or across the bottom for misbehavior or to teach them things like not to stick their fingers in a light socket or to touch a hot stove, but beating a 1 ½ month old infant with a wooden dowel, a quarter sized round to the point of it being audible from another room, inflicting pain and causing deep bruising just because the infant cries or gets restless, is not discipline, that’s child abuse.
My mother told me of the time when I was an infant, only a month or two old, when she, my father and older brother were attending Mass and I started crying very loudly.
My mother gathered me up in her arms and started hurriedly walking out of the church when the priest stopped in middle of the Homily and shouted to my mother, “Where are you going?” My mother said, “I’m so very sorry Father, I’m taking her outside because she’s fussy and crying.”
Then Father Joseph said, “No, please stay. Do you think our Lord and Savior is offended by the sound of a crying baby?
HE knows and understands that little babies cry and that the little tykes get restless sometimes, after all HE was once a little one Himself. She’s just making her own joyful noise unto the Lord. Jesus said and we should all remember: “Suffer the little children, and forbid them not to come to me: for the kingdom of heaven is for such.” We should rejoice at the sounds of babies as God loves them so.
Besides if need be, I can talk just as loudly as she cries.” My mother sat back down with me and I quieted and Father continued.
That is in my opinion, an example of a man of God.
Viva el Christo Rey!
“And this is why I think he got convicted, because he did exactly what you suggest above. An assumption, sure, like the rest of us posting here, we were privy to neither the evidence in the case nor the jury instructions provided by the judge.”
What was the specific act or acts where he directly conspired with a member to commit a criminal act of abuse above what the law allows? It should be public and in the case discovery.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.