Band on the Run, I have a Mennonite business associate and we were discussing this case yesterday. Like you, we both came to the conclusion that this should have been tried as an 'assault and battery' case along with possible breaking and entering, unlawful entry, terrorizing etc., etc. But the so-called 'religious' aspect of the crime should never have been persued in a 'secular' court.
Could Amish convictions for hate crimes against "Apostates" open way for convictions of Jehovah's Witnesses ?
by Balaamsass2 14 Replies latest social current
-
-
Balaamsass2
Googling Cal Law: The Bane Act," Civil Code section 52.1 --provides protection from interference by threats, intimidation, or coercion or for attempts to interfere with someone's state or federal statutory or constitutional rights (these include association, assembly, due process, education, employment, equal protection, expression, formation and enforcement of contracts, holding of public office, housing, privacy, speech, travel, use of public facilities, voting, worship, and protection from bodily restraint or harm, from personal insult, from defamation, and from injury to personal relations)-- proof of "hate motivation" required, according to a 1994 Court of Appeal decision in Boccato v. City of Hermosa Beach"
-
Julia Orwell
Gosh by that definition then why are the westboro Baptists still running around spreading their hate?
-
Band on the Run
Emotional distress damages are problematic. The WT is not doing anything near emotional distress in legal terms. Emotional distress is a tort. The First Amendment is a const'l right. There is emotional distress in every day parlance and emotional distress as a legal cause of action.
-
Band on the Run
I've only skimmed the articles on hate crimes being a significant threat to civil liberties. Aren't American hate crimes copying Europe? One never heard about them much and suddenly, voila! Hate crimes deny freedom of speech and association. The ACLU has defended many a Nazi and members of the KKK. It is messy for Americans. They sound so nice. I don't know all the issues. Members of the KKK and Nazis have First Amendment rights to burn crosses on their own property. Of course, fire laws must be satisfied. I don't know how to articulate well but arson, burglary, etc. go back far in British history.