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.
“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.