“Or think of it this way, a Mafia Boss may be correct in saying “I never killed anybody in my life” but if after expressing the opinion that “Vinny the Bagman is scum and a snitch and should die”, he actually instructs members of his family to kill Vinny, he is not at that point merely exercising free speech even if he himself does not pull the trigger.”
Then Caminiti would have had to have done a lot more than he did, more in the way of criminal intent, which would be a direct instruction to one of his members to go above and beyond what the law limits as far as discipline is concerned and order a specific act of physical abuse on a specific child that is excessive beyond what the law allows, which involves conspiring with an abuser and having that person act on his specific instructions to break the law and commit a specific violent act to the benefit of Caminiti himself. Just preaching about spanking like he did should not rise to that level. If an individual took Caminiti’s words and was excessive and broke the law, then that individual’s act should be prosecuted.
Then Caminiti would have had to have done a lot more than he did, more in the way of criminal intent, which would be a direct instruction to one of his members to go above and beyond what the law limits as far as discipline is concerned
<><><<
And this is why I think he got convicted, because he did exactly what you suggest above. An assumption, sure, like the rest of us posting here, we were privy to neither the evidence in the case nor the jury instructions provided by the judge.
I am not thinking he uttered his instructions from the pulpit (and as I understand it, they met in homes, there was no pulpit), but standing with his flock, dowel in hand, demonstrating exactly what we wanted to them to do, perhaps even threatening them in some fashion if they did not do as he said (hey everyone else is speculating, why not me?).