Muslim extremists burn poppies on Armistice Day.

[eclipse]

Hmmm. . .

Were these protesters causing bodily harm? Probably not, unless they threw someone into the fire.

Were these protesters causing property damage? Technically yes, but I think they owned the poppies, so it's a moot point.

Were these protesters breaking any laws by protesting? Dunno about the fire codes or other really obscure stuff, but I'm willing to bet they weren't.

Thus, peaceful protest. I might be missing a few lot of things, so feel free to correct this!

[lolDeath]

Peace is not defined as "WHEN PEOPLE AREN'T HITTING ONE ANOTHER".

[Phoenix Wright]

Peace is not defined as "WHEN PEOPLE AREN'T HITTING ONE ANOTHER".

You would think more people would understand that...

[eclipse]

Peace is not defined as "WHEN PEOPLE AREN'T HITTING ONE ANOTHER".

I live to get on other people's nerves!

Where's the line drawn in terms of provocation? I have no clue.

[Kanami]

Peace is not defined as "WHEN PEOPLE AREN'T HITTING ONE ANOTHER".

Exactly <_< (QFT)

"Peaceful" is not defined as people not breaking the law. <_<

There probably isn't any laws against going around and telling every second person you meet to go "fuck themselves" but it's still by no means a peaceful attitude. Hostility and breaking the law are two separate issues.

@Eclipse

A sorry existence you are

Okay let me put it this way, would you be comfortable with a group of extremists setting fire to things infront of your house? Would you be happy to let them chant "burn in hell" loud enough for your entire neighborhood to hear? They're not committing any crimes (actually intentionally setting fire to things for the sake of burning them in public is an offense) but hey, they have the right to protest and voice their opinion whereever they want right?

@Rest

Why is it so hard to arrest someone? We're not talking 20 years or anything here. You don't even need to put them in prison really. Restraining and preventing this sort of behavior is connected to protecting the social cohesion in society. Right of speech? Yeah, okay <_< Bloody westerners so caught up in their "rights" they've lost any shred of common sense they had left

[eclipse]

@Eclipse

A sorry existence you are

Can't hold a candle to you. :P

Okay let me put it this way, would you be comfortable with a group of extremists setting fire to things infront of your house? Would you be happy to let them chant "burn in hell" loud enough for your entire neighborhood to hear? They're not committing any crimes (actually intentionally setting fire to things for the sake of burning them in public is an offense) but hey, they have the right to protest and voice their opinion whereever they want right?

Let's see. . .I believe open flames in a residential area is against the law. They'd be disturbing the peace, and I'm certain the neighbors wouldn't appreciate it (neither would the fire station across the street). So your example would break the law.

A better example would be the jerks out of Topeka. They technically don't break the law, but they're really irritating. The best medicine for them is NOT to give them attention.

[Raven]

Requesting this thread be moved to the "Entertainment" forum.

[Meteor]

Regardless of whether you consider it peaceful, it was non-violent. Okay, so it was offensive, but it doesn't physically deter you from anything. Can someone explain to me why that should make it illegal?

I really wish people had thicker skin than this. It only makes you upset because you let it.

[lolDeath]

Yeah when some hick rides by a black guy in their truck and shouts NIGGER it is totally the fault of the guy walking down the street for getting upset.

RIGHT?

[Meteor]

To an extent. He may not have control over his immediate emotional reaction, but he doesn't have to let it upset him long-term. That is his choice, not that this justifies the other man's action.

Like I said, wishful thinking. We can ban any words that someone might find hurtful, but that's treating the symptoms instead of the cause. Instead, many people would rather be shielded against conflicting opinions rather than be offended. That would require brain activity to overcome.

Edited November 15, 2010 by Meteor

[lolDeath]

lol, Most people don't have that level of control over themselves brah. This isn't about banning protests or words, it's about hate speech. I guess it's going to take something that is more universally offensive though, like pedophile rights or something.

[Kanami]

Regardless of whether you consider it peaceful, it was non-violent.

Peace is not defined as "WHEN PEOPLE AREN'T HITTING ONE ANOTHER".

Most countries with a decent justice system would acknowledge that "violence" doesn't exclusively refer to physical violence. For example if I told my ficitious child that he was unwanted, useless and that I wished he'd die. Apparently that constitutes as verbal violence/abuse.

In comparison, if my fictious husband had served and died serving his country (assume he's a british soldier) I'm sure those placards are just as offending.

I really wish people had thicker skin than this. It only makes you upset because you let it.

It's not a matter of getting upset, I don't know where you people get the idea that people will "stop" if you ignore them. Since it seldom actually happens. In most cases it escalates to the point where someone ends up hurt or even dead. School bullying being a great example. If you ignore the bully, he's not going to get bored and go away. At least, not before he causes you some serious grief.

To an extent. He may not have control over his immediate emotional reaction, but he doesn't have to let it upset him long-term. That is his choice, not that this justifies the other man's action.

Like I said, wishful thinking. We can ban any words that someone might find hurtful, but that's treating the symptoms instead of the cause. Instead, many people would rather be shielded against conflicting opinions rather than be offended. That would require brain activity to overcome.

So your solution is to suppress your natural feelings and let people walk all over you? Don't you have "rights" against that? I'm actually completely serious when I say you people discard "reasonability" for the sake of your "rights" too often. I'm not too big a supporter of social cohesion, but letting people do whatever they want is not a "solution" to a complication.

I'm not too fussed about my neighbor saying "God, British soldiers are horrible, I wish they'd all burn in hell" since that's his opinion, and as you all keep preaching, he has the right. A public demonstration is a completely different matter though. Having an opinion regardless of how "wrong" it is, is fine. However putting that into action and trying to convince others or venting frustration that the world around you sucks isn't doing any good, more so if you're trying to convince the public not an individual.

[Meteor]

Most countries with a decent justice system would acknowledge that "violence" doesn't exclusively refer to physical violence. For example if I told my ficitious child that he was unwanted, useless and that I wished he'd die. Apparently that constitutes as verbal violence/abuse.

In a very broad sense, I guess one might consider that violent, but that is not the interpretation that comes to mind when I think of it. My point is that no one who saw these protesters was forced to take any action at all, whereas a demonstration that involved physical acts couldn't be ignored.

It's not a matter of getting upset, I don't know where you people get the idea that people will "stop" if you ignore them. Since it seldom actually happens. In most cases it escalates to the point where someone ends up hurt or even dead. School bullying being a great example. If you ignore the bully, he's not going to get bored and go away. At least, not before he causes you some serious grief.

So your solution is to suppress your natural feelings and let people walk all over you? Don't you have "rights" against that? I'm actually completely serious when I say you people discard "reasonability" for the sake of your "rights" too often. I'm not too big a supporter of social cohesion, but letting people do whatever they want is not a "solution" to a complication.

Every bully I encountered in school had to resort to physical violence because their words were not harmful. That is where there is a clearly defined line that can be used to show something punishable occurred. I am not saying words cannot be used to make others miserable; they can. However, there is no easy solution that I can foresee, because human judgment would be involved to determine if something illegal happened. THAT is what I find unreasonable.

I am not asking people to suppress how they feel, nor was I offering a solution. I said I wish they would have a different reaction.

So, what would your solution be? Arrest everyone who does something offensive? What if the arrest offended me?

I'm not too fussed about my neighbor saying "God, British soldiers are horrible, I wish they'd all burn in hell" since that's his opinion, and as you all keep preaching, he has the right. A public demonstration is a completely different matter though. Having an opinion regardless of how "wrong" it is, is fine. However putting that into action and trying to convince others or venting frustration that the world around you sucks isn't doing any good, more so if you're trying to convince the public not an individual.

How is it completely different? Both are outward ways of expressing opinions. One has more people involved, showing support for the cause. Neither one can force someone to be unhappy.

[Kanami]

In a very broad sense, I guess one might consider that violent, but that is not the interpretation that comes to mind when I think of it. My point is that no one who saw these protesters was forced to take any action at all, whereas a demonstration that involved physical acts couldn't be ignored.

It doesn't need to be considered in a broad sense to be considered violent, I'm not sure why you're clinging to the letter of the law (rights) in your defence, and then commenting that another legal definition is "broad"

VIOLENCE. The abuse of force. Theorie des Lois Criminelles, 32. That force which is employed against common right, against the laws, and against public liberty. Merl. h. t, 2. In cases of robbery, in order to convict the accused, it is requisite to prove that the act was done with violence; but this violence is not confined to an actual assault of the person, by beating, knocking down, or forcibly wresting from him on the contrary, whatever goes to intimidate or overawe, by the apprehension of personal violence, or by fear of life, with a view to compel the delivery of property equally falls within its limits. Alison, Pr. Cr. Law of Scotl. 228; 4 Binn. R. 379; 2 Russ. on Cr. 61; 1 Hale P. C. 553.

Every bully I encountered in school had to resort to physical violence because their words were not harmful. That is where there is a clearly defined line that can be used to show something punishable occurred. I am not saying words cannot be used to make others miserable; they can. However, there is no easy solution that I can foresee, because human judgment would be involved to determine if something illegal happened. THAT is what I find unreasonable.

Not sure about your personal experiences but if that's you're view you probably don't have a proper understanding of "bullying" I read a post on another forum recently, so I suppose I'll copy that over.

Okay so there's this rumor going around at my high school that I'm gay. I am not gay and I assure you that I am straight. I don't have any problem with anyone who is gay either, I have a few friends who are and I respect them for who they are. I learned about this rumor from a few of my friends who decided to confront me about it. At first I thought they were joking about it, but it started to seem like they truly believed the rumor over my own position of what I told them. Upon this my best friend decided to start listing examples of how I was gay, then he proceeded to have me admit that I was gay. Honestly never saw this coming from my best friend and it deeply saddens me that he along with a few of my other friends believed the rumor over my own voice on the matter. I suppose I'm posting this here because I'm looking for suggestions on what I should do now. I'm afraid of the bullying that the rumor will most likely cause, and it also saddens me having lost good friends to such pathetic circumstances. I was planning to confront my friends in person about this, because I was hoping they were only joking about it and maybe took it too far. I hate bullying tremendously and part of me only wants to find out who started the rumor and kick his ass or at least give him a peace of my mind. Any suggestions on how I should react to this rumor or what I should do?

It's not clear who started the rumor but if it was done with the intention of harming the poster mentally or socially, it constitutes as bullying, no? In this case, it is causing misery and harm. Misery in the form of mental incapability, and harm in the form of lost trust between friends. (aka Friendships).

The thing with your comment is, (and every comment out there) that it's using human judgment, if human judgment isn't used to determine if anything illegal happened, what can we use? An automated machine which doesn't consider the circumstances? A mother stealing food to feed her starving kids, and a woman stealing jewelery both constitute as theft, and both would be sentenced equally by a machine, while some leniency might be shown with human judgment, even if the sentencing is the same, the machine would penalized the mother, and not take into consideration what happens to the kids afterwards.

I find the act of arguing against the use of "human logic" to be absurd. :/

I am not asking people to suppress how they feel, nor was I offering a solution. I said I wish they would have a different reaction.

So, what would your solution be? Arrest everyone who does something offensive? What if the arrest offended me?

What different reaction? Obviously it's not something to smile about, if you're not asking them to suppress their feelings. If I wished for your loved ones to "burn in hell" you might shrug it off as some stupid internet kid ranting at you, but would the emotions within you from such an act be positive or negative?

I don't understand why everything has to go to court/prison with you people. I've seen a group of dodgy looking teenagers hanging around the shops constantly, and a security guard will come along and ask them to move along, not because they're comitting crimes or breaking rules, but because people don't like them being there. (They're there when I start work 9AM and still there when I finish 6PM if left alone) <_< I keep restating this, but why must "rights" come into everything? Why can an action be made against a person(s) unless they've comitted some heinous crime or infringed on someones rights? The idea of "no crime has been committed so no action should occur" is very mechanical, it's equal sure, but it doesn't work in practice.

The protest in this topic served no purpose other then to indicate to the public that a group of people wanted another to burn in hell. If this isn't racism, I'm not sure what is. It's not a protest against war, it's a protest about the people who died during war. <_< I personally don't put much value on human life since I'm more concerned about the living, but acts like this are not only slandering the dead, but promoting social division and hostility. Not a good thing to have in ones neighborhood. :/

How is it completely different? Both are outward ways of expressing opinions. One has more people involved, showing support for the cause. Neither one can force someone to be unhappy.

Okay first and foremostly, how can something make someone "miserable" but not "unhappy?" :/

Numbers is the first thing that comes to mind, using SF as an example, lets say I think you're an idiot who spams the boards and I don't want you here. You can probably shrug that off pretty easily, now what if the over half the forum members shared my belief and wanted you gone? Would you be able to shrug that off just as easily?

Presentation and objective are another, having an idea and voicing it to people is one thing, making a public demonstration is another. When you're demonstrating, you're not just expressing an opinion. You're making a point and promoting it. It's not a case of "I have an opinion, you have one too" but a case of "This is fact, do something about it" Which in connection results to demonstrations usually being done to make another party do something about the problem,

[Raven]

Regardless of whether you consider it peaceful, it was non-violent. Okay, so it was offensive, but it doesn't physically deter you from anything. Can someone explain to me why that should make it illegal?

I really wish people had thicker skin than this. It only makes you upset because you let it.

Regardless of whether you consider it non-violent, it was not peaceful. Only because there were police surrounding them already, protecting them from people who may want to fucking rip out their eyeballs or something, were they able to do the protesting they did without interruption.

[Meteor]

Not sure about your personal experiences but if that's you're view you probably don't have a proper understanding of "bullying" I read a post on another forum recently, so I suppose I'll copy that over.

[...]

Sure, that would be considered bullying, but how do you stop that? You can't just make it illegal, because there is no one to blame.

The thing with your comment is, (and every comment out there) that it's using human judgment, if human judgment isn't used to determine if anything illegal happened, what can we use? An automated machine which doesn't consider the circumstances? A mother stealing food to feed her starving kids, and a woman stealing jewelery both constitute as theft, and both would be sentenced equally by a machine, while some leniency might be shown with human judgment, even if the sentencing is the same, the machine would penalized the mother, and not take into consideration what happens to the kids afterwards.

I find the act of arguing against the use of "human logic" to be absurd. :/

Regardless of her motive, the action of stealing is not acceptable. Sorry.

And I find the idea of having gray areas in law to be woefully unpredictable and subject to whim. What it you were the one on trial, and thought you would be exonerated, but suddenly weren't because the judge didn't feel like it?

What different reaction? Obviously it's not something to smile about, if you're not asking them to suppress their feelings. If I wished for your loved ones to "burn in hell" you might shrug it off as some stupid internet kid ranting at you, but would the emotions within you from such an act be positive or negative?

The reaction of knowing that person is hateful, and so nothing they say should be taken to heart.

I don't understand why everything has to go to court/prison with you people. I've seen a group of dodgy looking teenagers hanging around the shops constantly, and a security guard will come along and ask them to move along, not because they're comitting crimes or breaking rules, but because people don't like them being there. (They're there when I start work 9AM and still there when I finish 6PM if left alone) <_< I keep restating this, but why must "rights" come into everything? Why can an action be made against a person(s) unless they've comitted some heinous crime or infringed on someones rights? The idea of "no crime has been committed so no action should occur" is very mechanical, it's equal sure, but it doesn't work in practice.

Because it's discrimination. You are telling those people that how they are perceived is how they actually are. Example: We should arrest any minority who is driving a nice car, because obviously they stole it.

The reason we pass judgment on actual actions is to protect the minority. You would appreciate it, I'm sure, if you found yourself in the minority.

The protest in this topic served no purpose other then to indicate to the public that a group of people wanted another to burn in hell. If this isn't racism, I'm not sure what is. It's not a protest against war, it's a protest about the people who died during war. <_< I personally don't put much value on human life since I'm more concerned about the living, but acts like this are not only slandering the dead, but promoting social division and hostility.

Not a good thing to have in ones neighborhood. :/

If the goal is to eliminate racism, gagging the racists is the wrong way to do it. That will only feed into their martyr complex. If people hear what they have to say and can ignore it, they will have much more difficulty justifying their position.

Nor is it good to have closet racists.

Okay first and foremostly, how can something make someone "miserable" but not "unhappy?" :/

Numbers is the first thing that comes to mind, using SF as an example, lets say I think you're an idiot who spams the boards and I don't want you here. You can probably shrug that off pretty easily, now what if the over half the forum members shared my belief and wanted you gone? Would you be able to shrug that off just as easily?

If you re-read what I wrote, I stated that it doesn't have to make someone miserable/unhappy. I wasn't saying they were different.

If half the forums hated me, I would assume that my views were unwelcome, or possibly wrong. I would probably leave because no one wanted to talk to me. That wouldn't make me wrong, however. See: argumentum ad populum

Presentation and objective are another, having an idea and voicing it to people is one thing, making a public demonstration is another. When you're demonstrating, you're not just expressing an opinion. You're making a point and promoting it. It's not a case of "I have an opinion, you have one too" but a case of "This is fact, do something about it" Which in connection results to demonstrations usually being done to make another party do something about the problem,

So what you're saying is that it's okay to have an opinion, it's just not okay to do anything about it unless you're in the majority, then it's totally cool. Maybe we should start burning heretics again while we're at it.

Regardless of whether you consider it non-violent, it was not peaceful. Only because there were police surrounding them already, protecting them from people who may want to fucking rip out their eyeballs or something, were they able to do the protesting they did without interruption.

Maybe we fundamentally disagree. In my mind, the person who started the fight was the one who threw the first punch, not the one who taunted.

Think of it another way. Maybe someone didn't like gas prices, and bombed a gas station. Is it the station's fault for setting a price that was disagreeable? That doesn't make a lick of sense to me.

Edited November 17, 2010 by Meteor

[lolDeath]

Maybe we fundamentally disagree. In my mind, the person who started the fight was the one who threw the first punch, not the one who taunted.

Think of it another way. Maybe someone didn't like gas prices, and bombed a gas station. Is it the station's fault for setting a price that was disagreeable? That doesn't make a lick of sense to me.

I don't think you should really be able to compare a group of people intentionally provoking aggression with supply and demand. They are kind of totally different.

[Kanami]

Sure, that would be considered bullying, but how do you stop that? You can't just make it illegal, because there is no one to blame.

I keep stating this, but why the hell does everything have to be illegal to warrant punishment?

Regardless of her motive, the action of stealing is not acceptable. Sorry.

And I find the idea of having gray areas in law to be woefully unpredictable and subject to whim. What it you were the one on trial, and thought you would be exonerated, but suddenly weren't because the judge didn't feel like it?

Her act of stealing is indeed not acceptable, but her circumstances should be taken into consideration as well. She commited a crime, and thus should be punished, though note the distinct difference between stealing a car and a loaf of bread, (other then the price).

If you'd like to argue against the jury system, I'm game :/

The reaction of knowing that person is hateful, and so nothing they say should be taken to heart.

I don't know why you bothered to post this, we all should know that it's impossible.

Because it's discrimination. You are telling those people that how they are perceived is how they actually are. Example: We should arrest any minority who is driving a nice car, because obviously they stole it.

The reason we pass judgment on actual actions is to protect the minority. You would appreciate it, I'm sure, if you found yourself in the minority.

I am in the minority, constantly :/

And they're not making a case against themselves by seeming like stupid primitive thugs? Waving Allah in our faces is supposed to make us not accept the typical views on them, right? Discrimination isn't the worst thing in the world, and you're quite clearly putting too much value into it. Being in the minority doesn't equate to being looked at differently. If we change the scenario a bit, lets change those muslim protesters with British citizens. Would the criticism that would be incited be able to use the "discimnation" argument?

Overall, it's the "I'm black, and you're saying I broke into the house solely due to my race" argument, when the accused was caught in lurking around the vicinity at the time of the break in, and was acting "suspiciously"

If the goal is to eliminate racism, gagging the racists is the wrong way to do it. That will only feed into their martyr complex. If people hear what they have to say and can ignore it, they will have much more difficulty justifying their position. Nor is it good to have closet racists.

Ignoring them isn't any different. Racism is impossible to eliminate anyway, so gagging them and feeding their martyrdom isn't a bad thing IMO. Some may actually stop out of fear of being punished.

If half the forums hated me, I would assume that my views were unwelcome, or possibly wrong. I would probably leave because no one wanted to talk to me. That wouldn't make me wrong, however. See: argumentum ad populum

It doesn't make anyone wrong, it's a matter of opinion afterall. However it does illustrate the meaning of numbers.

So what you're saying is that it's okay to have an opinion, it's just not okay to do anything about it unless you're in the majority, then it's totally cool. Maybe we should start burning heretics again while we're at it.

You foolishly seem to think that their actions were "peaceful" so let me put it this way, if you get angry and trash your room, that is an act of violence, it's you're room, it's your belongings but it doesn't change the fact that you lashed out at your surroundings. No laws were broken, you're saying the act is peaceful, because no laws were broken?

Definition of Violence: To cause harm, injury or destruction through mental of physical means.

Not a definition of violence: Breaking a law.

Setting fire to a national flag is an act of violence, setting fire to a symbol of importance is also an act of violence. As both are causing destruction to an object.

[Meteor]

I don't think you should really be able to compare a group of people intentionally provoking aggression with supply and demand. They are kind of totally different.

How does one prove they were provoking aggression?

I keep stating this, but why the hell does everything have to be illegal to warrant punishment?

It seems stupid to me to make a rule against something unpunishable. Whoever started a rumor could just say he saw it on Facebook, but doesn't remember where.

I don't know why you bothered to post this, we all should know that it's impossible.

It's not literally impossible. I personally know several people who would be counterexamples. However, this discussion spawned from my wishful thinking blurb, so there's not much point in arguing about it. :/

Being in the minority doesn't equate to being looked at differently. If we change the scenario a bit, lets change those muslim protesters with British citizens. Would the criticism that would be incited be able to use the "discimnation" argument?

Overall, it's the "I'm black, and you're saying I broke into the house solely due to my race" argument, when the accused was caught in lurking around the vicinity at the time of the break in, and was acting "suspiciously"

I meant the minority opinion, not race. You are saying they should be punished for being rude, essentially, for an act which is only rude because the majority says so.

Ignoring them isn't any different. Racism is impossible to eliminate anyway, so gagging them and feeding their martyrdom isn't a bad thing IMO. Some may actually stop out of fear of being punished.

Murder is impossible to eliminate; we still try to minimize it. Arrest prevents continued murder. It does not prevent continued racism. I don't feel it is an appropriate nor useful punishment. Maybe it would be. Maybe some would stop when they realize their voices are useless, or someone confronted them instead of hiding them from the public.

You foolishly seem to think that their actions were "peaceful" so let me put it this way, if you get angry and trash your room, that is an act of violence, it's you're room, it's your belongings but it doesn't change the fact that you lashed out at your surroundings. No laws were broken, you're saying the act is peaceful, because no laws were broken?

Definition of Violence: To cause harm, injury or destruction through mental of physical means.

Not a definition of violence: Breaking a law.

Setting fire to a national flag is an act of violence, setting fire to a symbol of importance is also an act of violence. As both are causing destruction to an object.

I'll just explicitly forfeit this definition argument now because you seem to really be pushing it, even though I tried to drop it earlier.

Their actions did not physically damage anyone. That is what I was saying was peaceful, but I take it back. Regardless, no matter what they said or did, they can't hurt me if I simply look away.

So if their actions are damnable for being offensive, why isn't the media also be accountable for propagating the offense? They are directly responsible for offending many people.

Edited November 18, 2010 by Meteor

[lolDeath]

How does one prove they were provoking aggression?

By using plain common sense. I see you're taking the LOL I'M GONNA ARGUE JUST TO ARGUE CAUSE ATTENTION IS COOL route though, original.

[Raven]

How does one prove they were provoking aggression?

So if their actions are damnable for being offensive, why isn't the media also be accountable for propagating the offense? They are directly responsible for offending many people.

Are you serious? Burning poppies wouldn't provoke people to want to hurt them if they had the chance? Please, do not make me laugh. If you only understood exactly how much the people of this country cared about Armistice Day, you wouldn't be saying that. Did you not read the news article? Just Google "Muslims burning poppy" and I'm sure you'd get a fuckton of news on it, as well as comments aimed towards the Muslim community.

While we're at it let's not broadcast to the World that the Twin Towers were brought down. The media doesn't give a shit. The media takes the best news for the best views. And who exactly would hold the media accountable? The Muslim extremists? They don't give a shit either. They wanted to be heard, and they were, now they make the Muslim community look bad to anyone with only a single braincell who will assume all Muslims are like that. These extremists were thick as shit in doing what they did, and especially the time they did it.

[Meteor]

So is it safe to say no one agrees with me that what they did shouldn't give them a jail sentence?

[lolDeath]

I think it's even safer to say that your reading comprehension is pretty shitty.

[Raven]

So is it safe to say no one agrees with me that what they did shouldn't give them a jail sentence?

Being arrested does not equal jail.

[Anouleth]

I keep stating this, but why the hell does everything have to be illegal to warrant punishment?

Are you suggesting we should change the law so it is illegal so that we can punish these people?