>So he has two points -- and they're the same point. I actually agree with what this judge is trying to say, but the way he says it makes our position sound stupid. He sounds like he doesn't understand the basics of logic, let alone law.
Steve he is actually stating two separate points but yes they are kind of similar. The first is that their may be a law/guideline/regulation forbidding you from doing something. But his second point is that if you ignore (or are ignorant of) this thing then it is a 'Crime' and you may be punished as such.
Some things you can do like parking too long where you are not supposed to are prohibited and you may get a fine for such an action but it is not a 'crime'. You do not risk getting a criminal record and all the restrictions this will cause if you commit such a parking offense. So basically some things are very serious and can be criminalized while other actions are not as the law is not designed to make 90% of your population criminals for doing small things which while annoying don't cause large harm.
So his second point is that the proposed law would make this action a criminal offense which is a lot worse than just trying to restrict this action.
To highlight the point you do not make a law to prohibit people from stabbing their annoying neighbor in the leg with a screwdriver. You make it a criminal offense and throw the book at them when they do it. Like wise you might prohibit people from viewing DVD's they shouldn't also pass laws that turns all these people into criminals that have to bunk next to crazy guys with screwdrivers for a few months.