I have a good deal of sympathy for people unhappy that a so-called comedian got off a serious sex charge because he made people laugh.
Like most people, I know who this guy is. I have never thought his brand of humour was particularly funny. In fact, had I been the presiding judge I may have regarded this fellow's overwhelming unfunniness as an aggravating feature in sentencing.
Anyway, the Coalition for the Safety of Women and Children is now planning to complain about the judge. Good luck to them, I say. Absent corruption or dishonesty, not much can be done to a judge when they make a ruling the public dislikes. Our system of democracy gives the judiciary independence and (supposedly) ensures that judicial decisions are made based on fact instead of uninformed public opinion.
But judges are human, and sometimes they f**k up. This may be one such occasion, though I don't know enough about the case to be certain. The judge's decision certainly leaves me uneasy.
I don't think protesting outside the courts is necessarily futile, because people are entitled to send a message to the judiciary when they think judges are out of step with public sentiment on an issue.
While complaining about the judge to the Chief Justice may "send a message", I can't see it leading to any sort of disciplinary action against the judge. I suppose someone senior in the judiciary might take the judge aside and enquire politely whether she really thinks she got it right, but that might be about the extent of the "punishment".