Brits and Blasphemers
Charles Paul Freund | January 14, 2005, 3:46pm
Thanks to a proposed law that would limit permissible speech concerning religion, the UK is is in the middle of a debate about free speech. Two recent events have exacerbated the situation: a now-cancelled play called Bezhti upset many Sikhs (the playwright has gone into hiding); a musical called Jerry Springer: The Opera was broadcast by the BBC and reportedly offended many Christians who in protest burned their TV licenses. The writers' group English PEN is worried about the law, and has written a letter asking for a meeting with the Home Secretary.
Meanwhile, Salman Rushdie has complained in a letter to The Guardian that "The continuing collapse of liberal, democratic, secular and humanist principles in the face of the increasingly strident demands of organised religions is perhaps the most worrying aspect of life in contemporary Britain."
The Home Office Minister, Fiona Mactaggart, responded with a letter of her own: "For many years the law has established that free speech rights do not licence people to stir up hatred of others on the basis of their race. Now we are seeking to offer the same protection to people targeted because of their faith. This is not religious appeasement, but a responsible reaction to the tactics of those, especially from the extreme right, who would foster community tension by stirring up hatred of members of a faith group."
Writes Timothy Garton Ash, "Future historians may look back on the last three decades of the 20th century as a high point of freedom of expression, never to be achieved again. There may be a net gain in other public goods - such as civic peace - but there'll be a net loss of liberty."
Thanks to: ArtsJournal
Gary Gunnels | January 17, 2005, 10:34am | #
Augustine,
They are part and parcel of American culture too. What Europe (and the U.S.) has uniformily are virtual bans on "prior restraint" laws.
See
Chaplinsky v. NH [the "Live Free or Die State" of all places] 315 U.S. 568 (1942), where the SCOTUS upheld the conviction of a man who violated a state statute forbidding anyone to address "any offensive, derisivee or annoying word who is lawfully in any [public space] [or] call[ing] him by any offensive or derisive name."
Note that the fellow was denouncing "organized religion" on a street (he was a Seventh Day Adventist) and a disturbance occurred in the wake of his statements. When the cops took him in the direct of the police station, he called the City Marshal (who had urged him to "go slow" during his speech) a "damned fascist" and a "God damned racketeer."
Note that the court in 1949 (in a 5-4 decision) struck down a conviction under a similar set of circumstances (though the disturbance was much more significant) in
Terminiello v. Chicago 337 U.S. 1 (1949), though the court stated that
Chaplinsky was still good law. Specifically it argued that while speech must be protected against censorship or punishment, such could apply to speech where it "produce[s] a clear and present danger of a serious substantive evil that rises far above public inconvenience, annoyance, or unrest."
Yet the conviction of a man for disorderly conduct was upheld in
Feiner v. NY 340 U.S. 315 (1951) where the court reasoned that the defendant was appropriately arrested for attempting to start a riot. Yet the dissent argues that the "facts" in the case didn't merit the arrest (from what the majority presented they appear to be right) and that it was against the threats of a hostile audience that the speaker needs protection and not vice versa.
For similar back and forth concerning issues like "group libel," "offensive words," unconventional forms of communication, etc., see:
Beauharnais v. Illinois 343 U.S. 250 (1952);
Cohen v. California 403 U.S. 15 (1971);
U.S. v. O'Brien 391 U.S. 367 (1968); etc.
We regulate speech a lot in this country; we just don't realize it, that's all.
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSS
