An amendment to the bill saying as much wouldn’t hurt it and might help the bill gain support.
Lol. You would certainly think so. Unfortunately, this has demonstrably not been the case in American jurisprudence.
Yup. It would be covered under a state or federal code which read something like this:
(a) Whoever commits an offense or aids, abets, counsels, commands, induces or procures its commission, is punishable as a principal.
If hate crimes are a legal offense, I don’t see a reason why you couldn’t prosecute the preacher who tells the violent guy that the Bible teaches that homosexual acts are an abomination in the eyes of God. In fact, you could probably prosecute him as a principal actor and sentence him accordingly.Code:(b) Whoever willfully causes an act to be done which if directly performed by him or another would be an offense, is punishable as a principal.
Do you see any way around it?
Bottom line: publicly reading certain parts of the Bible will be effectually banned, under pain of imprisonment if some wing-nut you don’t know decides to hurt someone. He just has to be in the congregation when you read it. If he’s there, you go to jail for a very long time.
So much for freedom of religion.
No, silly, an exemption from prosecution for incitement with regards to this specific felony on the basis of religious teachings.
Please, tell me, why aren’t assault or battery charges sufficient to redress these problems?
God Bless,
RyanL
Kaplan v. Prolife Action League, 123 N.C. App. 720, 724, 729 (1996) (citing testimony of attorney of private corporation before Senate Judiciary Committee which resulted in committee substitute bill to support limited scope of state RICO private right of action), modified & aff’d by Kaplan v. Prolife Action League of Greensboro, 347 N.C. 342, 344 (1997) (affirming holding but disavowing reliance on materials found in legislative minutes); Thomas v. Barnhill, 102 N.C. App. 551, 554 (1991) (quoting language from opinion letter of private law firm found in minutes of House Judiciary Committee to support holding that enactment was “intended merely to clarify the law”); In re Foreclosure of Greenleaf Corp., 99 N.C. App. 489, 495 (1990) (noting that court’s interpretation of statute in accord with interpretation of legislative staff as reflected in memorandum attached to standing committee minutes); Morgan v. Polk County Bd. of Educ., 74 N.C. App. 169, 176 (1985) (affirming trial court’s reliance on language in public testimony of C.D. Spangler found in minutes of joint legislative committee); Taylor v. J.P. Stevens, 57 N.C. App. 643, 645 (1982) (quoting one-sentence statement of purpose by Commissioner of industrial commission, as recorded in non-verbatim minutes of joint committee meeting, as revealing intent to provide additional benefits to persons disabled prior to 1973).
In my reading? They seem to go with their gut, citing “policy reasons”. Very subjective, that standard.
…so far…I’d agree that this has been the case in most instances. That interpretation could change, however, and there’s really nothing to prevent it from changing.
Not necessarily…the standard of “what a reasonable person ought to know would incite X” can be very creatively employed, and it’s not at all clear that this wouldn’t be the judiciary standard.
I agree with the first part, but if a single pastor gets prosecuted for incitement simply because he read Deuteronomy…what are the implications? I don’t think that’s silly at all.
You want an in-depth treatment, buy a book. I assure you I’m not making things up.
That’s not what I said.
What I think is irrelevant. It’s what a (any) judge thinks (if a jury trial is waived), or what any given jury might think based on the argument it hears. And there are some pretty squirrelly juries out there. Get a trial in some areas of San Francisco and the result isn’t beyond the imagination that they’d believe the Bible teaches precisely that.
One would hope, but it’s not at all guaranteed. All I’m saying is that this is shaky ground, and legislation like this doesn’t make me feel comfortable. The trend to declare parts of the Bible “hate speech” is growing in other Western countries, and I’m willing to bet it’s only a matter of time until it gets here. If that happens, a conviction on the charge of incitement for merely repeating the “hate speech” is not far away.
It is a reasonable request, and I gave you a book where a Supreme Court Justice does so clearly.
Can you tell me why there’s reason to think it won’t be used? I said it’s not clear that it won’t, not that it definitely (or even probably) will.
Like I said, it doesn’t matter whether or not I think the Bible teaches that homosexuals should be hurt/killed/etc. I clearly stated why: I’m neither the judge nor the jury.
Read the book. It happens.
Agreed.
That’s where we disagree. And, further, that’s where you disagree with the several congressmen who have looked into this. Can you find me a congressman who says this won’t be the case?
All the people involved seem to think it will be – unless you have sources I haven’t read. Moreover, I gave the current international trend regarding “hate speech” and the Bible, and if there’s “hate speech” then incitement to “hate crimes” isn’t far behind.
Because we’ve following their lead in a lot of other things (including in Lawrence v. Texas, I might add). Increasingly, the Court is looking to what’s permitted and not permitted in other countries to determine what the rule should be for us.
Really?
I learned about this from a BAC friend at the VA Hospital.He’s right. It would be disproportionate. However, the same is true of existing legislation that identifies Catholics as a group getting disproportionate justice. They are both unnecessary laws.
I wasn’t aware there ws such a day. Does anyone know of a list of all the various special days? Are 365 enough? Do some have to share?
The book does it far better than I do.
You’re getting confused.
Show me the legal standard for incitement, and show me that it’s been employed the way you claim. I’ve been doing all the research so far – now it’s your turn.
So you say. A rather notable Supreme Court Justice disagrees with you, and claims that it has meant much.
I’ve posted a Supreme Court ruling which says you’re wrong. I’m not sure how else to tell you.
I gave you a scholarly article which described how we have done it and are likely to do it more in the future.
Was Beauharnais overruled?
