Yes, there are, in some jurisdictions, statutes similar to what you describe.
Everyone’s all upset that I dared to point out a technical definition, when it was so obvious a colloquial use was intended.
But when I see such a thing, look how I respond:
The word ‘slime’ also means " a repulsive or odious person." Cite.
See – this an excellent example of how easily these kinds of inquiries can be defused.
We fight ignorance with links to the dictionary.
And when your manner of reminding people offends them and turns them off to your point of view, what have you accomplished?
No.
If you did, in fact, care about fighting ignorance, these words would not have come from you when they did:
People will almost always be offended in these circumstances, because they suffer from cognitive dissonance: they simultaneously picture themselves as caring about justice and the rule of law, and yet utterly willing to see a particular hated individual get punished because he deserves it, not matter the pesky barrier of no actual violation of the law.
But my hope is that even while people are getting all offended and self-righteous, some part of their mind is reminding them, “Yeah, that’s a fair point. I wouldn’t want to live in a world where we did things that way.” Because people are proud, admissions of that realization rarely materialize. But I’m convinced – or at least hopeful – that they happen.
First degree buzz-harshing, at bare minimum. Also partial, if not total, bogosity.
Bricker, you know it’s possible for a person to not mean the exact literal definition of their words, right? You’re the only person in this thread that seems to not understand that.
When there’s a missed call in a football game, and an announcer says that a player just got away with murder, do you actually think he believes a person’s life was illegally ended? No? Then shut the fuck up.
Hmm, I see what you’re talking about, but I think that you’re reading something that isn’t necessarily there.
There’s a big difference between “hey, it would be nice if people who did awful things like cover up child molestation always got what they deserved… I don’t care what the law is, because I’m not making a legal argument, I’m just saying, this guy deserved punishment because he did terrible things. Wait, there’s not a law that he actually technically broke? God damn it, let’s write that fucking law!” and “I think this guy did awful things and deserves to go to jail. I don’t care what the law is, let’s throw his ass in jail anyhow. C’mon, cops and government, THROW HIS ASS IN JAIL JUST BECAUSE!!!”.
The first is claiming that the guys karmically deserves punishment regardless of whether the law provides for that punishment, and, if the law doesn’t provide for that punishment, bemoaning that as a weakness in the law; the second is claiming that the guys deserves punishment, and actively and literally endorsing him receiving that punishment from the legal system even with no actual trial or criminal conviction.
This is a topic that lends itself to misunderstandings, because words like “should” and “deserve” are not always very precise. So, what they heck, before we go dashing around and accusing people of vigilanteism, let’s actually ask them for clarification. So: BobLibDem, can you step in and clear things up for us?
Here was the OP:
A few of my responses:
Notice the big difference in that thread? I’m defending a liberal. So the usual thirty-poster pile-on fails to appear.
But notice how I’m doing it? Exactly the same way I’m doing this.
Because what matters to me are facts.
I’m going to go with there is probable cause to charge Mahoney with a number of crimes, including obstruction of justice, aiding and abetting and criminal conspiracy. I hope he is charged.
Ah, I see.
So if you offend people, you will ask God to forgive them for being stupid.
Hey, you and Mahoney have a lot in common!
Huh.
I asked if that’s what was happening, using a similar analogy:
And the response I got to that question was:
We humans call it “sarcasm”, Sheldon.
Interesting that you look at it from that direction.
I tend to look at it from the other side: if I am correct about a fact, and yet people are rejecting out of hand what I’m saying, there is something about the way I am delivering my message that is putting them off. I cannot dictate how people react to what I’m saying. I can only change what I’M doing in delivering my message to have a better chance for it to be accepted. Maybe my tone is insulting. Maybe my word choice doesn’t click with the person I’m talking to. Maybe I smell funny. And maybe I’m just not the right messenger, because of the recipient’s preconceptions. (Lord knows, I’ve had too much of that lately; we’ve been doing home improvements. I’ll make a suggestion, Sweetie will argue with me, but if he talks to my dad who suggests the exact same thing, he’ll accept it. 'Cause dad’s an engineer, and I’m not…it’s frustrating.)
But if I know that my message is being rejected, and I do nothing but expect that the OTHER person will change and come to the truth in time, because by golly they should, then I’m going to be waiting a longass damn time.
Which bookends nicely with your statement about my drive to fight ignorance:
You have proudly and self-righteously decided, from four words of mine, that I have no interest in fighting ignorance. I suspect I may have to wait a long time for you to consider that you might be wrong, because I am done trying to convince you otherwise.
I see this prince of the Roman Catholic Church learned in the mid-80’s that at least two of his priests were raping children. I see that he participated in providing advice to these priests to help them avoid triggering mandatory reporting and otherwise counseled on how they could avoid secular punishment.
Thankfully, God’s special grace helps this prince seek to forgive those who would confront him as a monster. I wonder how a prince with such hubris learns humility.
It never occurred to me until reading this latest apology.
You were raped by a priest as a young boy weren’t you?
It’s okay. You don’t have to keep apologizing for them.
It’s not your fault.
Did I mean throw him in jail without a trial? Of course not. It’s my opinion that he’s a very evil person and deserves to be in prison. If we lack the evidence or crime to put him there for real, that’s irrelevant. I would like to see him behind bars but I’m not advocating that it not be done without the standard due process. Similarly, if I see someone lying in the street bleeding profusely I might say “that dude needs to be in the hospital” without having a precise medical diagnosis.
To repeat, I don’t advocate that we jail people without trials. But we all have our opinions, and my opinion is that the guy is a criminal. If that word gets someones panties in a bunch, too bad.
That couldn’t have happened, as you can plainly see with a simple experiment involving paper towel tubes. 
At this point, yeah, it pretty much is.
I’m entirely happy to stipulate to the following:
(a) in that thread you posted in defense of a prominent liberal because of the facts of the case
(b) you have also done so in plenty of other threads
(c) if there were an army of thousands of clones of Bricker, enough that one could be assigned to every thread on the SDMB, the opinions you and your clones would post in those threads would be largely motivated by facts and not ideology… at least moreso than many posters, and moreso than many of your critics would suspect
What I’m skeptical of is the idea that how you choose to apportion your time on the SDMB is in some fashion totally neutral and purely fact-based. Not that this is in any way a criticism… but presumably in cafe society threads you spend more time talking about TV shows you like and are interested in than ones you’ve never seen. Similarly, in GD and Pit threads, it’s almost certain that you spend more time talking about issues that interest you, and/or issues that you’re knowledgeable about, than other issues.
Although this is a pretty navel-gazing tangent at this point…
The bishop in Nova Scotia made an apology on behalf of the RC church for its priest’s sexual abuse of young people going back to the 50s, a 15 million dollar settlement was reached, and five days later he was caught importing child porn. Yup. Criminal.
Oh, wait a minute, this thread is about the fellow who was in charge of the apology and settlement in L.A., not N. S. My bad. (Well, maybe not my bad. More likely that it is the RC church’s bad.)