There was a justified outcry recently when a video surfaced (below) of an Ohio man William Bailey making fun of a young girl with cerebral palsy at a bus stop. It is a brief video but enough to enrage a nation. Now, Canton Municipal Judge John A. Poulos ordered the maximum sentence for Bailey, who pleaded no contest to reduced misdemeanor charges of disorderly conduct and aggravated menacing. I realize how emotionally charged this case has become, but should mocking be treated as a criminal act?
Bailey insisted that he was reacting to name-calling directed at his 9-year-old son, but most people see the video has a direct mocking of the little girl with a pronounced limp.
The Knight family has lived next door to the Baileys for two years and the families had developed serious problems. The case is reminiscent of the Petkov case.
The film below does not show what normally passes for disorderly conduct or menacing. These terms have always been uncomfortably ambiguous for civil libertarians. Here they seem to be simply the most convenient way to vent well-founded anger at Bailey. The charges were reportedly based on the video, though originally the girl’s family said that Bailey threatened to choke the mother with a chain.
If mocking a little girl can be charged as disorderly conduct and menacing, how about mocking other people for political or religious reasons? This man appears a perfect tasteless cad. However, should he be criminally charged?
Source: ABC
Gene,
once again, you are spot on about the dangers of restricting speech. As I stated earlier on this thread, free speech is messy. You highlighted the viable current legal measures that can be utilized to protect children without restricting the freedom of speech. If we restrict free speech to allow for an exception when people are not being nice to children, it opens a wide door for abuse.
P.S. He makes what is called industrial music. You’d hate it. 😀
Or as Scrapping Foetus Off the Wheel (Jim Thirwell) put it, “An ounce of protection beats a pound of cure.”
Blouise,
I understand perfectly well where you are coming from. In fact, if you read back you’ll see I even agreed with it in principle. Where I’m coming from is free speech is the fundamental right in question. Even when you think the content is wrong such as verbally abusing children. Right now, with the law as it is, it’s free speech unless there is a pattern of abuse – requisite to prove criminal psychological child abuse – or you can prove the intent portion of the elements for IIED in tort. Given that the first criminal charge is likely right out and second tort charge is actually not a bad case, that means new law to address this problem is not only risky, but a bad idea due to ancillary risks involved in restricting a fundamental right. No new law is needed to address this issue. Use what we’ve already got on the books. If you want to consider an alternative to create a deterrent effect? I’d suggest a penalty enhancement for IIED when it involves children rather than criminalizing speech. It’s safer for our rights and it still provides deterrent to verbally abusing children albeit civil and not criminal in nature and it preserves the objective intent standard. Some remedy exists in the law as it is for the what you find upsetting and that is IIED in tort. To reject it because it is imperfect is the Nirvana fallacy and ignores the easier solution of an exacerbating factor for penalties with existing law. Do you really want to create a precedent for criminalizing speech based on offense? Don’t you see how that could get out of hand and is ripe for abuse for political purposes? Even if used simply as precedent? Because that’s what criminalizing that type of speech could and would likely lead to in the hands of those who only dream of political power.
I’ve been told I’ll wake with a hand gnawed off by my feline overlords for using this expression, but there is more than one way to skin a cat.
Restricting speech or any right should only be done on a very narrow basis for substantive social benefit and only when there is no other viable alternative.
Do you see where I’m coming from?
here is no instructions to tell people to love in the constitution. Constitution does not even resembling the KJV. What do you suppose is keeping people in line, love which brings peace or fear which is the beginning of war?
SwM,
We tend to forget how many millions of citizens the Constitution “kept in their place”.
There is no instructions to tell people to love in the constitution. Constitution does not even resembling the KJV. What do you suppose is keeping people in line, love which brings peace or fear which it the beginning of war?
Gene,
Ah, but is the verbal abuse of children by adults a fundamental right?
If it is not then Free Speech does not apply and Free Speech can never make it a fundamental right.
Do you see the direction from which I am coming?
Blouise, In the “Lincoln” movie one of the lines was that if you give black men the right to vote then next women will get the right to vote. The gasps were louder for the women’s vote.
“I am stating quite simply and plainly that raising the status of Free Speech to that of an unquestioned deity and thus demanding that the man in question be permitted, under the guise of “free speech”, to abuse a class of citizens who are the weakest and most vulnerable of all the classes without hindrance is wrong.”
And I am saying why infringing upon a fundamental right – no matter how noble the cause – is an intrinsically dangerous action.
I’m not mischaracterizing your argument. Your platform is fine right where it is. I’m making a counter proposition that highlights why changing a fundamental right a risky idea. Perhaps you are too used to my use of direct deconstruction and/or redirection. For this style of argumentation, I don’t need your argument to change one bit. Pointing out risk in fact works better if you don’t change your argument.
Gene,
It wasn’t a typo … I trusted you’d pick it up
Gene,
You keep misstating my argument to match your points. You call it “feelings” or “hurt feelings” but that is your misinterpretation in an attempt to force me to argue from that platform. I won’t do so.
I am stating quite simply and plainly that raising the status of Free Speech to that of an unquestioned deity and thus demanding that the man in question be permitted, under the guise of “free speech”, to abuse a class of citizens who are the weakest and most vulnerable of all the classes without hindrance is wrong.
Down through the centuries we have righted many things that were wrong with the Constitution … we freed an entire class of citizens from Constitutionally protected slavery, we freed another entire class of citizens from Constitutionally protected nothingness when we gave women the vote, we stopped sending young people to die in war when the Constitution refused to give them a vote by changing the voting age … perhaps it is now time to consider whether or not the weakest and most vulnerable of all the classes needs some help through Constitutional reworking.
I have to admit that I’ve never thought much about the exclusion of children from the Constitution but this matter of representing the verbal abuse by adults of children as protected free speech has focused my attention on the subject.
One can always hope that a man like this is, some day soon, the recipient of a Darwin Award.
Yep. I’ll have to agree it does stink, shano.
“Could they get a restraining order?”
Possibly, shano. Actually as this has played out so far, I think some judges would condition this guy’s release upon no further contact with the child, but since he’s got the maximum already on the charges and will simply be free at the end of his term? We’ll just have to see. It would be more in line with my expectations if the guy was serving a shorter term with probation, but I’m not sure what the Ohio sentencing guidelines allow. Absent that? It would depend on how strong the parent’s case for applying for an RO independent of the criminal charges are and in this instance they are probably pretty good. However, remember an RO is only a piece of paper. It may not stop him, but it would provide grounds for immediate arrest if he violates it.
I think it should have been handled at the school by a councilor who could talk with the son and his father about their actions. Some trained person in the community should have been consulted. The son still needs to talk to someone about this now that his dad is in jail.
The threats to choke someone should be reported to the police for a record of violence by a neighbor. Yea, this case stinks.
Gene that is why this case sucks.
At least with the ‘free speech’ right of the WBC the community could effectively block with more ‘free speech’- the lines of people dressed as angles, etc.
This man & his son live right next door to the victim. Could they get a restraining order? He can still mock her as he goes out to get the mail.
Thanks. I am cheery, Blouise. ‘Tis the season and all that despite fighting off a wicked cold. However, I was not cherry picking as Madison was quite clear about the potentials for abuse inherent in both too much and too little governmental power. You and Tony are both arguing what you think the laws should be. I’m arguing what they are and that going down the path of protecting feelings is a particularly dangerous path as it relies inherently upon a subjective standard. Consider the cross burning example. Is such a display likely to upset a black person? Sure it is. But cross burning is not a crime unless the intent of the cross burner is to intimidate said black person. They can be as upset as they like but absent proof of intent to intimidate, it’s protected free speech. If you wish to protect children – which I agree is within the spirit of the right of free speech itself as a philosophical and ethical matter – then any such laws would have to be carefully crafted to be minimally intrusive on the right being limited and set to a narrow objective standard, not just that “someone’s feelings got hurt”. As indicated, the parents may be able to pursue an IIED claim in civil court which would be adequate remedy and thus making a legal novation not only unnecessary but – as Madison admonishes indirectly – unwise. Every time we create a class based on something subjective, we create a danger for abuse. To be clear, I’m not arguing that you guys are wrong in wanting to do something to provide a more specific remedy when children are involved. I’m saying that you should be very very mindful of the Pandora’s Box you open when addressing such matters as even if you can craft a reasonable exception for free speech based on a legitimate governmental interest? It can still come back to bite you in the ass as a rational for further eroding the right as precedent.
“Which I think goes precisely to my point that the regulating of speech (or any liberty) is fraught with the potential for abuses.” (Gene)
Cheery picker.
But I stand firm on the point that a rigid religiosity as to the divinity of the First Amendment which proclaims and grants a protection for all those who verbally abuse the weakest and most vulnerable class within our society is a stance granting an ‘undue degree of power’ to free speech. Such a stance betrays that which free speech was meant to protect.
gbk,
thanks for the fix … was your Thanksgiving free of saw dust? 😉
So, she was afraid to have the curtains open at home because of these bullies? That may show a ‘pattern of abuse’. There may be more, and I doubt this is the first time.