31 May 12
http://www.infowars.com/pastor-sentenced-to-2-years-in-prison-for-teaching-that-parents-should-spank-their-children/
In Wisconsin a pastor named Philip Caminiti was sentenced to 2 years in prison by Dane County Circuit Judge Maryann Sumi for simply teaching that parents should spank their children when they misbehave.
How can this be?
31 May 12
2 edits
Encouraging people to commit crimes is a bit suspect, and specifically encouraging people to abuse children is more than suspect. Nevertheless, I don't think people should be jailed just because they say that other people should commit crimes. If people abuse their children, then they are accountable.
31 May 12
1 edit
Seems from the news article linked by the site you linked that this is more than just for advocating spanking.
This pastor was advocating disciplining children as young as 2 months old by "spanking" them with wooden spoons and rods.
I'm not sure where the first amendment line is drawn, but it's one sick son of a ***** who advocates beating a 2 month old child for any reason.
31 May 12
Originally posted by whodeyhttp://host.madison.com/wsj/news/local/crime_and_courts/article_de5ac314-a6ba-11e1-94c4-0019bb2963f4.html
http://www.infowars.com/pastor-sentenced-to-2-years-in-prison-for-teaching-that-parents-should-spank-their-children/
In Wisconsin a pastor named Philip Caminiti was sentenced to 2 years in prison by Dane County Circuit Judge Maryann Sumi for simply teaching that parents should spank their children when they misbehave.
How can this be?
"The children were beaten for of all things doing what children do, and that is crying," Sumi said.
As far as I am concerned advocating the beating of a child of two months old for crying is advocating child abuse. Do you agree?
Do you think people should be free to advocate child abuse?
31 May 12
1 edit
Originally posted by PsychoPawnYeah; I noticed that too. Anyone who advocates punishing a 2 month old (or a 6 or 8 month old for that matter) is clueless. Babies of that age (really until at least 15-18 months) are completely incapable of understanding the cause and effect of the "misbehavior" and the "punishment" and punishment is therefore completely useless and stupid.
Seems from the news article linked by the site you linked that this is more than just for advocating spanking.
This pastor was advocating disciplining children as young as 2 months old by "spanking" them with wooden spoons and rods.
I'm not sure where the first amendment line is drawn, but it's one sick son of a ***** who advocates beating a 2 month old child for any reason.
Still, the constitutionality of this conviction is dubious. Incitement requires that the statement be intended to incite imminent lawless action (this doesn't seem to be a case of imminent lawless action) and so I noticed they discussed this as being a "conspiracy." Without a concrete illegal activity as the objective, that seems a bit contrived to me.
31 May 12
Originally posted by FMFMy guess is that he only read the "infowars.com" article that decided to omit that fact.
Why did whodey omit this information from the OP?
Whodey likely didn't go to the actual news story to find out details or the nuance in the story. I'm not really surprised.
31 May 12
Originally posted by sh76I think it definitely could be argued that recommending child abuse in the name of punishment could cross the line into incitement. This pastor knows that he's in a position of authority with his congregation and he knows that his sheep will do what he recommends.
Yeah; I noticed that too. Anyone who advocates punishing a 2 month old (or a 6 or 8 month old for that matter) is clueless. Babies of that age (really until at least 15-18 months) are completely incapable of understanding the cause and effect of the "misbehavior" and the "punishment" and punishment is therefore completely useless and stupid.
Still, the const ...[text shortened]... " Without a concrete illegal activity as the objective, that seems a bit contrived to me.
I would say beating a child as young as that is lawless action and influencing people whom he knows will do what he says to do that could be inciting imminent lawless action - i.e. child abuse.
31 May 12
Originally posted by PsychoPawnOkay, but where is the "imminent" part?
I think it definitely could be argued that recommending child abuse in the name of punishment could cross the line into incitement. This pastor knows that he's in a position of authority with his congregation and he knows that his sheep will do what he recommends.
I would say beating a child as young as that is lawless action and influencing people wh ...[text shortened]... s will do what he says to do that could be inciting imminent lawless action - i.e. child abuse.
31 May 12
Originally posted by sh76Imminent means likely to happen at any moment. If a parent intends on beating their child for even crying then I can see that as being somewhat imminent.
Okay, but where is the "imminent" part?
Whether it meets the legal requirements is another story.
I could understand if this guy's conviction was overturned, but depending on the details I can see the argument having some validity.
31 May 12
1 edit
Originally posted by PsychoPawnActually Whodey has a point to make here even though I was not aware of the spanking of a 2 month old child in the mix. Forgive me for not thoroughly researching the article like I usually do. LOL.
My guess is that he only read the "infowars.com" article that decided to omit that fact.
Whodey likely didn't go to the actual news story to find out details or the nuance in the story. I'm not really surprised.
Louis Farrakhan, another brilliant religious leader, recently said that stealing, fornicating, and adultry were all worthy crimes of death.
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2012/05/louis-farrakhan-praises-sharia-warns-that-allah-will-bring-down-americas-skycrapers-unless-america-s.html
Then he went on to threaten America if it attacked Iran.
Granted, I'm not in favor of spanking a 2 month old, but I feel this pales in comparison to one Louis Farrakhan. I also think the 2 year sentence is absurd.
31 May 12
Originally posted by whodeyWhat Farrakhan said is nothing different than many christian pastors in this country would also say.
Granted, I'm not in favor of spanking a 2 month old, but I feel this pales in comparison to one Louis Farrakhan. I also think the 2 year sentence is absurd.[/b]
Recently there was a pastor in Kansas who openly suggested that we create concentration camps for gay people and since they don't reproduce they will just eventually die out.
I find it interesting how whodey has such selective outrage.
31 May 12
Originally posted by PsychoPawnSomewhat imminent is practically an oxymoron.
Imminent means likely to happen at any moment. If a parent intends on beating their child for even crying then I can see that as being somewhat imminent.
Whether it meets the legal requirements is another story.
I could understand if this guy's conviction was overturned, but depending on the details I can see the argument having some validity.
Yeah, I suppose the argument can be made. But do you really think it's a good one?
If you were a judge bound by the "imminent lawless action" standard, would you apply that here?
31 May 12
Originally posted by sh76I think it was inevitable that it would happen, but there would be no way to know whether it would happen that night, the next night. It would depend on when one of the kids of the audience had the temerity to start crying.
Somewhat imminent is practically an oxymoron.
Yeah, I suppose the argument can be made. But do you really think it's a good one?
If you were a judge bound by the "imminent lawless action" standard, would you apply that here?
This would be a very hard decision for me because I would see the abuse of children to essentially be inevitable, but I am not sure it does satisfy the imminent lawless action standard. From what I've read it can't just be some action at some point in the future, but it's pretty likely that a baby would cry at some point in the soon future.
I am on the line on this one and I think it likely does not actually satisfy the legal requirements.
The fact that this is coming from someone seen by these people as an authority makes me feel like it is more imminent and more likely than if it was just from some dufus giving bad advice though.
31 May 12
Originally posted by PsychoPawnOkay, fair enough.
I think it was inevitable that it would happen, but there would be no way to know whether it would happen that night, the next night. It would depend on when one of the kids of the audience had the temerity to start crying.
This would be a very hard decision for me because I would see the abuse of children to essentially be inevitable, but I am not su ...[text shortened]... s more imminent and more likely than if it was just from some dufus giving bad advice though.
Now for a perhaps tougher question:
Assuming you believe in freedom of speech (which I'm sure you do), does it bother you that someone is punished for expressing an opinion from the pulpit?