Man raises demon in church. Is this a crime?

Couscous

It would mostly depend on how they define insulting. Intentional infliction of severe emotion distress is already punishable and the law provides for defenses.

(a) The defendant had no reason to believe that there was any person within hearing or sight who was likely to be alarmed or distressed by his action.
(b) The defendant was in a dwelling and had no reason to believe that his behaviour would be seen or heard by any person outside any dwelling.
(c) The conduct was reasonable.

Thanatos

Henroid wrote: »

Thanatos wrote: »

So, what you're saying is that you think this protection from "spiritual harassment" should only extend to religions that people like? Or religions that you, personally like? I'm not understanding where the legal principle is here that makes these two cases different.

In terms of law, it should be that those who practice religion have a right to do so without harassment from others (be they of another religion or not), just like how people who don't practice any religion have a right to not be harassed by those who do. So it's not just religions "people like," or my personal take - it's all religions. I'm not saying, "Hey, Christians get special treatment." If someone went to a Mosque and pulled some shit, it's still wrong.

If it's to be a law, it'd have to be carefully worded. It'd have to be specific about actual intent to harass or disrupt the religious people. Otherwise things would get out of hand with religions flipping their shit about people's lifestyles (and then we'd be a shitty theocracy).

Look, all I want is for people of my religion, of any religion, to be left alone and worship as they please as long as that worship doesn't include going out and disrupting other people's lives, other through violent retribution or attempts at converting.

Well, I'm sorry, but if you want to live in a free society, being subject to proselytization and the ability to freely practice whatever rituals one wants without harming other people are just going to have to be part of it. They're the natural consequences of freedom of speech and freedom of religion, which this insane dungeonmaster is entitled to just as much as the church in question is.

And just like I think that this dude should be able to summon demons, I think the Mormon Church gets to put up with protestors for hating on the gays. But I guess you think that should be prosecutable as well, right? Protesting outside of a church? Since that must be harassment, right?

DasUberEdward

Henroid, with your religious beliefs would you be open to prosecuting church members who openly proclaim that for example all homosexuals will suffer eternal damnation?

Not being petty here i'm just trying to get perspective.

Premier kakos

I think this falls under "Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s." This is a spiritual crime, so let God (in his holy non-existence) take care of it, but leave the laws of man out of it. We don't need the laws of society defending one group of people who believe in fairy tales from the offensive fairy tales of another group.

GungHo

Henroid wrote: »

In terms of law, it should be that those who practice religion have a right to do so without harassment from others (be they of another religion or not), just like how people who don't practice any religion have a right to not be harassed by those who do. So it's not just religions "people like," or my personal take - it's all religions. I'm not saying, "Hey, Christians get special treatment." If someone went to a Mosque and pulled some shit, it's still wrong.

You'll get caught up in definitions of what "harassment" constitutes. You'll also jeopardize other things that have created issues for churches when they're given special treatment (e.g. losing tax exemptions for running political rallies) if they engage in their own harassment of people for doing things they don't like. Like abortions, buttsecks, and the like. i.e. If people are no longer allowed to protest against you, you may be setting up a situation where Westboro Baptist Church cannot look like it sponsors "God Hates Fags" rallies without losing their status as a religious institution, thereby losing all their tax exemptions and stuff.

You know what, this is a great idea. Let's enact your law. And none of that shit about "well, we don't hate fags, God does." Show up and the whole place is penalized. Man, that's genius.

nescientist

Henroid wrote: »

OptimusZed wrote: »

My saying this unironically may cause reality to collapse, but; Modern Man has a point. The terms used in that law are highly subjective and open to all sorts of interpretation.

It's cool that there's a point there, but the way he chose to word it made it seem like he was going into another "oh government" thing. Interpretation of the law is a bitch sometimes, but that's the Supreme Court's job (in America) right? And for the most part in our country, the Supreme Court has made the right decisions regarding civil rights. I don't know how the UK handles this sort of thing.

Well, that's just the thing - I didn't know how the UK handled this sort of thing until this morning, when I read this post, and it blew my fucking mind that they have an actual, honest to god, law against insults.

Pureauthor

It blew your mind that countries other than yours have different stances on the value of Free Speech?

Henroid

DasUberEdward wrote: »

Henroid, with your religious beliefs would you be open to prosecuting church members who openly proclaim that for example all homosexuals will suffer eternal damnation?

Not being petty here i'm just trying to get perspective.

I've been trying to be clear about this sort of thing (thanks for being kind in how you asked). A broad-based statement made by a member of any church is just a broad-based statement. If those same members are going to gay pride events (I'm sure they do) or just to any gay couple they can find and start getting in their face about it, I think the police should intervene.

As said, if a church wants to cling to beliefs about certain people, whatever, but when they start applying in life and getting people involved or targeted, it's not okay.

So the answer is, prosecute the ones engaging in harassment directly.

nescientist

Henroid wrote: »

just like how people who don't practice any religion have a right to not be harassed by those who do.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again: I will take my personal, constantly over my shoulder, screaming and yelling hellfire preacher before I accept any kind of law that would make his conduct illegal.

I do not have a right to not be harassed by religious people. It would sure be nice if I weren't, but it would be a terrifying dystopia that actually enforced that.

GungHo

Henroid wrote: »

So the answer is, prosecute the ones engaging in harassment directly.

How do you associate them with the church? Does it get back to the church? Or do you just prosecute only the people who said bad stuff?

nescientist

Pureauthor wrote: »

It blew your mind that countries other than yours have different stances on the value of Free Speech?

Absolutely. I've always thought it a pretty basic part of what makes a functioning representative government. I am having to revise these assumptions now.

Henroid

GungHo wrote: »

Henroid wrote: »

In terms of law, it should be that those who practice religion have a right to do so without harassment from others (be they of another religion or not), just like how people who don't practice any religion have a right to not be harassed by those who do. So it's not just religions "people like," or my personal take - it's all religions. I'm not saying, "Hey, Christians get special treatment." If someone went to a Mosque and pulled some shit, it's still wrong.

You'll get caught up in definitions of what "harassment" constitutes. You'll also jeopardize other things that have created issues for churches when they're given special treatment (e.g. losing tax exemptions for running political rallies) if they engage in their own harassment of people for doing things they don't like. Like abortions, buttsecks, and the like. i.e. If people are no longer allowed to protest against you, you may be setting up a situation where Westboro Baptist Church cannot look like it sponsors "God Hates Fags" rallies without losing their status as a religious institution, thereby losing all their tax exemptions and stuff.

You know what, this is a great idea. Let's enact your law. And none of that shit about "well, we don't hate fags, God does." Show up and the whole place is penalized. Man, that's genius.

Well I noted in that same post that it would be tricky as fuck to get into this law you guys think I want enabled right this second because there are lifestyles people life that religions get all uppity about. And protesting is one thing and harassment is another.

Pureauthor

GungHo wrote: »

Henroid wrote: »

So the answer is, prosecute the ones engaging in harassment directly.

How do you associate them with the church? Does it get back to the church? Or do you just prosecute only the people who said bad stuff?

Painting with broad strokes here would only invite trouble here, I think. I mean, the optimal solution would be to judge each individual case on its own merits, but we've neither the time nor manpower available.

DasUberEdward

Henroid wrote: »

DasUberEdward wrote: »

Henroid, with your religious beliefs would you be open to prosecuting church members who openly proclaim that for example all homosexuals will suffer eternal damnation?

Not being petty here i'm just trying to get perspective.

I've been trying to be clear about this sort of thing (thanks for being kind in how you asked). A broad-based statement made by a member of any church is just a broad-based statement. If those same members are going to gay pride events (I'm sure they do) or just to any gay couple they can find and start getting in their face about it, I think the police should intervene.

As said, if a church wants to cling to beliefs about certain people, whatever, but when they start applying in life and getting people involved or targeted, it's not okay.

So the answer is, prosecute the ones engaging in harassment directly.

From that perspective the issue really lies on if his action was public or private and in what ways it was promulgated.

Henroid

GungHo wrote: »

Henroid wrote: »

So the answer is, prosecute the ones engaging in harassment directly.

How do you associate them with the church? Does it get back to the church? Or do you just prosecute only the people who said bad stuff?

Well some people proudly declare their church or faith when doing shit. They feel emboldened by it. But, I said it already. You get the people who did it. The individuals. Not the whole church.

Leitner

I rolled up to the Church but he was busy with some kids and told me to come back in a few hours.

Caught Zombieland and when I got back it was closed. It appears I have been snubbed.

Lucid

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1wVOtW558RI

Henroid

Leitner wrote: »

I rolled up to the Church but he was busy with some kids and told me to come back in a few hours.

Caught Zombieland and when I got back it was closed. It appears I have been snubbed.

The thread has been delightful in your absence (no thanks to me).

Thanatos

Henroid wrote: »

GungHo wrote: »

Henroid wrote: »

In terms of law, it should be that those who practice religion have a right to do so without harassment from others (be they of another religion or not), just like how people who don't practice any religion have a right to not be harassed by those who do. So it's not just religions "people like," or my personal take - it's all religions. I'm not saying, "Hey, Christians get special treatment." If someone went to a Mosque and pulled some shit, it's still wrong.

You'll get caught up in definitions of what "harassment" constitutes. You'll also jeopardize other things that have created issues for churches when they're given special treatment (e.g. losing tax exemptions for running political rallies) if they engage in their own harassment of people for doing things they don't like. Like abortions, buttsecks, and the like. i.e. If people are no longer allowed to protest against you, you may be setting up a situation where Westboro Baptist Church cannot look like it sponsors "God Hates Fags" rallies without losing their status as a religious institution, thereby losing all their tax exemptions and stuff.

You know what, this is a great idea. Let's enact your law. And none of that shit about "well, we don't hate fags, God does." Show up and the whole place is penalized. Man, that's genius.

Well I noted in that same post that it would be tricky as fuck to get into this law you guys think I want enabled right this second because there are lifestyles people life that religions get all uppity about. And protesting is one thing and harassment is another.

This is why the law has no place in this.

The law requires a clear line in the sand you can draw, where you can say "this conduct over here is fine, but this conduct isn't, and this is why." I mean, really, I don't like this demon-summoning nutbag any more than the church does, I'm sure, but there's a difference between not liking someone and thinking they should be prosecuted.

Henroid

Thanatos wrote: »

This is why the law has no place in this.

The law requires a clear line in the sand you can draw, where you can say "this conduct over here is fine, but this conduct isn't, and this is why." I mean, really, I don't like this demon-summoning nutbag any more than the church does, I'm sure, but there's a difference between not liking someone and thinking they should be prosecuted.

This kind of post would've been much more appreciative instead of the opening "Jesus-magic" crap.

DasUberEdward

The more I think about this the more upsetting the behaivour of the church becomes. Why would they allow some silly fellow any sort of power over their members? It seems like at the very least he could have said that the summoning was a failure and the church is far beyond small esoteric rituals.

I mean that would have put everyone at ease and the topic would be moot. . .?

Couscous

The law requires a clear line in the sand you can draw, where you can say "this conduct over here is fine, but this conduct isn't, and this is why."

Then there would be almost no laws. Except for bright line rules that only work with certain laws, the best you can say for most laws is "this conduct over there is fine, but the conduct over there isn't fine, and we aren't precisely really sure about the conduct inbetween but don't be surprised if you get fucked because your conduct is too close to the first latter."

DasUberEdward

Couscous wrote: »

The law requires a clear line in the sand you can draw, where you can say "this conduct over here is fine, but this conduct isn't, and this is why."

Then there would be almost no laws. Except for bright line rules that only work with certain laws, the best you can say for most laws is "this conduct over there is fine, but the conduct over there isn't fine, and we aren't precisely really sure about the conduct inbetween but don't be surprised if you get fucked because your conduct is too close to the first latter."

Analytical jurisprudence disagrees.

Natural Law is also in the corner backing it up.

Raiden333

Leitner wrote: »

I rolled up to the Church but he was busy with some kids and told me to come back in a few hours.

Caught Zombieland and when I got back it was closed. It appears I have been snubbed.

What a jerk. You should summon a demon on him.

Delzhand

Zilla360 wrote: »

zeeny wrote: »

I don't see how we could conclude if it's or isn't a crime as we're severely lacking information.
I mean, come on people - What kind of demon is it?

Just give him the damn apple and he'll leave you alone!

Also, though, if they have laws against abusive or insulting speech, what is the punishment? I mean, there's a difference between "we take you in an explain why it's not okay to say you summoned a demon" and "we're going to lock you away for ten years for criticizing the PM". Hell, there's even a difference between the same crimes with the punishments swapped.

Thanatos

Couscous wrote: »

The law requires a clear line in the sand you can draw, where you can say "this conduct over here is fine, but this conduct isn't, and this is why."

Then there would be almost no laws. Except for bright line rules that only work with certain laws, the best you can say for most laws is "this conduct over there is fine, but the conduct over there isn't fine, and we aren't precisely really sure about the conduct inbetween but don't be surprised if you get fucked because your conduct is too close to the first latter."

The language of the law has to be clear. There are always going to be gray areas, but I have trouble seeing a law in this case under which this dude could be prosecuted, but members of other churches couldn't, or where this dude could be prosecuted, but people protesting the Mormon church couldn't, without being far too vague.

nescientist

Couscous wrote: »

The law requires a clear line in the sand you can draw, where you can say "this conduct over here is fine, but this conduct isn't, and this is why."

Then there would be almost no laws. Except for bright line rules that only work with certain laws, the best you can say for most laws is "this conduct over there is fine, but the conduct over there isn't fine, and we aren't precisely really sure about the conduct inbetween but don't be surprised if you get fucked because your conduct is too close to the first latter."

While that's true in practice, the entire institution of law is built around pretending otherwise. And certainly we can tell the difference in fuzziness between, say, the line that separates degrees of manslaughter from the line that separates "reasonable" insulting speech from "unreasonable" insulting speech. That's a serious distinction that is supposedly made in this "harassment, alarm, or distress" law. Specifically, "It is a defense for the accused to prove that his conduct was reasonable." That is a direct fucking quote.

Couscous

Also, though, if they have laws against abusive or insulting speech, what is the punishment? I mean, there's a difference between "we take you in an explain why it's not okay to say you summoned a demon" and "we're going to lock you away for ten years for criticizing the PM". Hell, there's even a difference between the same crimes with the punishments swapped.

A fine not to exceed a thousand pounds.

Thanatos

Couscous wrote: »

Also, though, if they have laws against abusive or insulting speech, what is the punishment? I mean, there's a difference between "we take you in an explain why it's not okay to say you summoned a demon" and "we're going to lock you away for ten years for criticizing the PM". Hell, there's even a difference between the same crimes with the punishments swapped.

A fine not to exceed a thousand pounds.

Man, if I had to pay a thousand pounds every time I insulted someone, Bill Gates wouldn't be able to pay what I'd owe the British Crown.

DasUberEdward

Thanatos wrote: »

Couscous wrote: »

The law requires a clear line in the sand you can draw, where you can say "this conduct over here is fine, but this conduct isn't, and this is why."

Then there would be almost no laws. Except for bright line rules that only work with certain laws, the best you can say for most laws is "this conduct over there is fine, but the conduct over there isn't fine, and we aren't precisely really sure about the conduct inbetween but don't be surprised if you get fucked because your conduct is too close to the first latter."

The language of the law has to be clear. There are always going to be gray areas, but I have trouble seeing a law in this case under which this dude could be prosecuted, but members of other churches couldn't, or where this dude could be prosecuted, but people protesting the Mormon church couldn't, without being far too vague.

The language of the law is anything but clear. This is one of the biggest problems with law in the first place. Without knowing the exact intention of the author we have to do our best to interpret said laws.

You know. It's why we have judicial systems.

Thanatos

DasUberEdward wrote: »

Thanatos wrote: »

Couscous wrote: »

The law requires a clear line in the sand you can draw, where you can say "this conduct over here is fine, but this conduct isn't, and this is why."

Then there would be almost no laws. Except for bright line rules that only work with certain laws, the best you can say for most laws is "this conduct over there is fine, but the conduct over there isn't fine, and we aren't precisely really sure about the conduct inbetween but don't be surprised if you get fucked because your conduct is too close to the first latter."

The language of the law has to be clear. There are always going to be gray areas, but I have trouble seeing a law in this case under which this dude could be prosecuted, but members of other churches couldn't, or where this dude could be prosecuted, but people protesting the Mormon church couldn't, without being far too vague.

The language of the law is anything but clear. This is one of the biggest problems with law in the first place. Without knowing the exact intention of the author we have to do our best to interpret said laws.

You know. It's why we have judicial systems.

There's a difference between "vague," and "unenforcably vague."

Leitner

The article I quoted earlier (about the couple getting fined for calling Mohammed a Warlord), said the fine is 2500 a piece?

Deebaser

OptimusZed wrote: »

Henroid wrote: »

Modern Man wrote: »

Um, proselytising is one of the most important parts of many religions. Freedom of religion doesn't mean much if the government can prevent you from peacefully trying to convert others to your religion.

As for the law in question,

(1) A person is guilty of an offence [of harassment, alarm, or distress] if he:

(a) uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour, or
(b) displays any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening, abusive or insulting,

within the hearing or sight of a person likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress thereby.

I have a problem with the bolded portions. Abusive and insulting speech, though boorish, should not be outlawed. This law seems like a great way to silence unpopular viewpoints.

That was the point that triggered this.

My saying this unironically may cause reality to collapse, but; Modern Man has a point. The terms used in that law are highly subjective and open to all sorts of interpretation.

I didn't wake up this morning expecting to lime one of ModernMan's posts either, but right is right. On this point he is 102% right.

DasUberEdward

Thanatos wrote: »

DasUberEdward wrote: »

Thanatos wrote: »

Couscous wrote: »

The law requires a clear line in the sand you can draw, where you can say "this conduct over here is fine, but this conduct isn't, and this is why."

Then there would be almost no laws. Except for bright line rules that only work with certain laws, the best you can say for most laws is "this conduct over there is fine, but the conduct over there isn't fine, and we aren't precisely really sure about the conduct inbetween but don't be surprised if you get fucked because your conduct is too close to the first latter."

The language of the law has to be clear. There are always going to be gray areas, but I have trouble seeing a law in this case under which this dude could be prosecuted, but members of other churches couldn't, or where this dude could be prosecuted, but people protesting the Mormon church couldn't, without being far too vague.

The language of the law is anything but clear. This is one of the biggest problems with law in the first place. Without knowing the exact intention of the author we have to do our best to interpret said laws.

You know. It's why we have judicial systems.

There's a difference between "vague," and "unenforcably vague."

:^:

Modern Man

Henroid wrote: »

OptimusZed wrote: »

My saying this unironically may cause reality to collapse, but; Modern Man has a point. The terms used in that law are highly subjective and open to all sorts of interpretation.

It's cool that there's a point there, but the way he chose to word it made it seem like he was going into another "oh government" thing. Interpretation of the law is a bitch sometimes, but that's the Supreme Court's job (in America) right? And for the most part in our country, the Supreme Court has made the right decisions regarding civil rights. I don't know how the UK handles this sort of thing.

A law like this would most likely be struck down in the US for being Constitutionally vague (meaning it doesn't give enough guidance as to what type of speech is banned) and/or overbroad (meaning that it bans types of speech that are and aren't Constitutionally protected)

Zilla360

Raiden333 wrote: »

Leitner wrote: »

I rolled up to the Church but he was busy with some kids and told me to come back in a few hours.

Caught Zombieland and when I got back it was closed. It appears I have been snubbed.

What a jerk. You should summon a Zombie demon on him.

'Fixed.

Couscous

nescientist wrote: »

Couscous wrote: »

The law requires a clear line in the sand you can draw, where you can say "this conduct over here is fine, but this conduct isn't, and this is why."

Then there would be almost no laws. Except for bright line rules that only work with certain laws, the best you can say for most laws is "this conduct over there is fine, but the conduct over there isn't fine, and we aren't precisely really sure about the conduct inbetween but don't be surprised if you get fucked because your conduct is too close to the first latter."

While that's true in practice, the entire institution of law is built around pretending otherwise. And certainly we can tell the difference in fuzziness between, say, the line that separates degrees of manslaughter from the line that separates degrees of insultingness of speech.

But we already have vague lines that separate degrees of insultingness of speech. Intentional infliction of emotional distress depends upon have a fairly vague line that depends upon the relationships of the people and a lot of other factors. Same with defamation laws.

nescientist

Couscous wrote: »

Also, though, if they have laws against abusive or insulting speech, what is the punishment? I mean, there's a difference between "we take you in an explain why it's not okay to say you summoned a demon" and "we're going to lock you away for ten years for criticizing the PM". Hell, there's even a difference between the same crimes with the punishments swapped.

A fine not to exceed a thousand pounds.

(5) A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months or a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale or both.".

http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/content.aspx?activeTextDocId=2156203

Thanatos

Couscous wrote: »

nescientist wrote: »

Couscous wrote: »

The law requires a clear line in the sand you can draw, where you can say "this conduct over here is fine, but this conduct isn't, and this is why."

Then there would be almost no laws. Except for bright line rules that only work with certain laws, the best you can say for most laws is "this conduct over there is fine, but the conduct over there isn't fine, and we aren't precisely really sure about the conduct inbetween but don't be surprised if you get fucked because your conduct is too close to the first latter."

While that's true in practice, the entire institution of law is built around pretending otherwise. And certainly we can tell the difference in fuzziness between, say, the line that separates degrees of manslaughter from the line that separates degrees of insultingness of speech.

But we already have vague lines that separate degrees of insultingness of speech. Intentional infliction of emotional distress depends upon have a fairly vague line that depends upon the relationships of the people and a lot of other factors. Same with defamation laws.

In the U.S. at least, either of those take some pretty extreme conduct in order to prove.

nescientist

Couscous wrote: »

nescientist wrote: »

Couscous wrote: »

The law requires a clear line in the sand you can draw, where you can say "this conduct over here is fine, but this conduct isn't, and this is why."

Then there would be almost no laws. Except for bright line rules that only work with certain laws, the best you can say for most laws is "this conduct over there is fine, but the conduct over there isn't fine, and we aren't precisely really sure about the conduct inbetween but don't be surprised if you get fucked because your conduct is too close to the first latter."

While that's true in practice, the entire institution of law is built around pretending otherwise. And certainly we can tell the difference in fuzziness between, say, the line that separates degrees of manslaughter from the line that separates degrees of insultingness of speech.

But we already have vague lines that separate degrees of insultingness of speech. Intentional infliction of emotional distress depends upon have a fairly vague line that depends upon the relationships of the people and a lot of other factors. Same with defamation laws.

I edited for clarity, but yeah also it is my generally held position that those laws are fucking bullshit, and should be pissed on at every opportunity. Same with "obscenity" laws.

EDIT: I'm thinking along the lines of libel here. I'm actually unfamiliar with defamation and infliction of emotional distress, specifically, and may be setting myself up for embarrassment.