By Mike Appleton, Weekend Contributor
“The law knows no heresy, and is committed to the support of no dogma, the establishment of no sect.”
-Watson v. Jones, 80 U.S. 679, 728 (1872)
In November of 1950 an Italian film directed by Roberto Rossellini entitled “L’Amore” opened in New York City with English subtitles. The film was an anthology of three stories, one of which, “The Miracle,” told the tale of an emotionally troubled peasant girl who is impregnated by a transient and believes that she is giving birth to Jesus. The film was voted best foreign language film by the New York Film Critics’ Circle. It was also condemned by the Catholic Legion of Decency as “a sacrilegious and blasphemous mockery of Christian religious truth.” Francis Cardinal Spellman, the powerful archbishop of New York, insisted that the film demonstrated a need for stronger censorship laws. Within a few months the New York Board of Regents revoked the license to show the film, a decision upheld by the New York state courts under a law permitting the banning of any film “that may fairly be deemed sacrilegious to the adherents of any religious group.”
The subsequent legal battle is instructive in considering the reaction to the horrific attacks in France over the past two days.The film’s U.S. distributor contested the banning in a case that reached the Supreme Court. In Joseph Burstyn, Inc. v. Wilson, 343 U.S. 495 (1952), the Court was asked to determine the constitutionality of the New York statute authorizing the banning of films deemed “sacrilegious.” The Court first concluded that motion pictures fall within the protection of the First and Fourteenth Amendments as a mode of expression. It then reversed the lower court decisions, holding that “the state has no legitimate interest in protecting any or all religions from views distasteful to them which is sufficient to justify prior restraint upon expression of those views. It is not the business of government in our nation to suppress real or imagined attacks upon a particular religious doctrine, whether they appear in publications, speeches or motion pictures.” 343 U.S. at 505.
The Wilson decision teaches us two important lessons. First, it reminds us that freedom of speech is grounded in freedom of thought, the inalienable right to entertain any idea and to attempt to persuade others of its veracity. Second, it reiterates the notion that a nation committed to religious pluralism cannot exempt religious doctrine from criticism, or even ridicule. That truth has become increasingly battered in a world of shrinking dimensions and increasing cultural confrontation. No better, or more appalling, examples of the assault on free speech by religious ideologues in the wake of the French crime spree can be found than those provided by Anjem Choudary and Bill Donahue.
Mr. Choudary is an English lawyer and radical Islamist who is reported to have advocated, among other things, the assassination of the Pope. His views are blunt and unflinching. “Muslims do not believe in the concept of freedom of expression . . . the potential consequences of insulting the Messenger Muhammad are known to Muslims and non-Muslims alike. It is time that the sanctity of a Prophet revered by up to one-quarter of the world’s population was protected.” Bill Donahue, who fancies himself a sort of censor deputatus on all opinions touching upon Catholicism, believes that the murder of Stephen Charbonnier, the publisher and editor of Charlie Hebdo, was to be expected. According to Mr. Donahue, “It is too bad that he didn’t understand the role he played in his tragic death.”
Mr. Choudary and Mr. Donahue represent flip sides of the same fundamentalist coin, and they are both wrong. The suggestion that critical speech, regardless of its vehemence, can merit a violent response is actually a rejection of a foundational principle for any cohesive society predicated upon diversity. It is for that very reason that efforts to criminalize speech deemed violative of religious doctrine, or political orthodoxy or social convention, is threatening and wrongheaded. No idea is deserving of respect beyond that which it can command by virtue of its tendency to compel conviction. No idea requires the protection of the law beyond the unreserved right to its expression.
Sources: Anjem Choudary, “People Know the Consequences,” USA Today (Jan. 8, 2015); “After Charlie Hebdo Attacks, U.S. Catholic group says cartoonists ‘provoked’ slaughter,” Washington Post (Jan. 7, 2015); Bill Donahue, “Muslims Are Right To Be Angry,” Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights (Jan. 7, 2015); “Anjem Choudary: Profile,” The Telegraph (Jan. 4, 2010).
The views expressed in this posting are the author’s alone and not those of the blog, the host, or other weekend bloggers. As an open forum, weekend bloggers post independently without pre-approval or review. Content and any displays of art are solely their decision and responsibility.
Jill,
I believe we are in agreement. I’m using the Eric Hoffer definition of “True Believer” to identify the motivation behind mass movements. Whether they are secular or religious, the same underlying principles are used to organize and energize the followers behind a cause for change; anything other than the status quo.
Oh dear!
Our boy, Georgie Stand Your Ground Zimmerman, arrested again for assault. Poor thing. Oh well – now that he’s been arrested five times since Trayvon, I understand he gets a cut-rate on attorney’s fees.
OIly, true believers is a good formulation although I stand by my statement: “many religious believers”. I live in an extremely religious area so I have quite a bit of experience with religious hatred, cruelty and intolerance towards those who think and feel differently from how many religious believers do. Remember also that religious intolerance is the subject of Mike’s post.
As a non-Democrat and non Republican and a non Obama believer, I have plenty of experience with partisan hateful acts against those who won’t toe the partisan and Obama worshiping line as well! I will stand by what I said while agreeing that true believers is also a good statement.
I would say this society is being propagandized like crazy. People are often unaware of our rights or are willing to jettison them in exchange for “safety”, especially since the govt. began to hype up the war of (on) terror after 9/11.
It is painfully obvious the so called “moderate” Muslims are unwilling or afraid to get control of the terrorists in their religion. That’s too bad. I know there are good and righteous Muslims. However, their inaction implies tacit approval. They will also bear the brunt of the blowback. And make no mistake, there will be blowback. There comes a time, when “You are either w/ us or against us.” That time is fast approaching. all of the PC words will not stop it. It will be very ugly. I pray it is averted.
I agree Jill with the exception that instead of “religious believers” I would say “true believers”. Given that inalienable rights are the centerpiece of civil society, is there any consistent effort to educate the citizens about them?
If this Administration had more time, they would be trying to enact blasphemy laws here. The President’s speech @ the UN in 2012 makes that perfectly clear. If that is ever the case w/ ANY administration, the right to bear arms and retake our Constitution will be necessary. Some folks here who are saying bravo to this post want only the government to be armed. They are ignorant of human nature and the Constitution. There will be NO appeasement of Muslim terrorists in this country. What is happening in Europe will just solidify the good people’s resolve in this country.
Oilly,
I do agree with that. Clearly it is up to we the people to secure and maintain our rights. The govt. is violating them daily, corporations are violating them daily and zealots of every stripe violate them daily. Yet we should work towards a society which maintains everyone’s rights. This means people need to have a commitment to free speech and to the rights of others. This does not seem to be the case with many religious believers or political partisans, to name two groups that have been in the business of destroying the rights of us all.
Jill,
I’m not implying harm is justifiable. We have absolutely no natural right to the ‘expectation’ that our rights will remain secure. Given the unchanging condition of human nature, we should expect that our rights are not secure. The fact we live in a civil society and have a Constitution and Bill of Rights has in no way secured us from violations of those rights. Actually, the greatest threats we face in the security of rights come from the very government chartered to secure them. It’s a fallacy to believe a government required to follow the rule of law will follow the rule of law. It’s a fallacy to believe because we have inalienable rights that they will not be alienated. Would you agree with that?
I disagree Oily. Where the defense of civil liberties is concerned we may indeed put ourselves at risk of harm. That does not mean that harm is deserved or should take place. It means that we value the lives of others and ourselves enough to speak up and take action where we may in fact be harmed. This is not the same as it being legal for that harm to occur. We should have every right to speak up and protest without fear of bodily harm. However, with this govt. we certainly know that is not the case. Still, it should be reasonable in a society of the rule of law, to speak freely without fear of physical harm. That it is not, shows us how far away from justice this society lies.
The defense of any rights that are backed by the Constitution and Bill of Rights is most certainly a way to ensure we remain a civil society. The fact that we have a way to defend those rights is what makes us a civil society.
Inga – I am so glad to hear you support the right to bear arms.
>> “The suggestion that critical speech, regardless of its vehemence, can merit a violent response is actually a rejection of a foundational principle for any cohesive society predicated upon diversity.” <<
And yet, after the terrorist attack in Benghazi, the alleged constitutional scholar in the White House and his senior aides ran around for two weeks blaming a lame youtube video for provoking the attacks.
If you don’t want to be offended by cartoons, don’t buy the paper and/or don’t view the cartoons. We have a responsibility to avoid putting ourselves in a position that would lead to our rights being violated. So for instance, if I don’t want my 6 year old son to view pornography, then I don’t walk down the Las Vegas strip with him. I have other options.
Defending inalienable rights is both a passive and active responsibility. It’s not enough to believe I have the right to speak my mind or that I have the right not to be killed for doing so. The fact I have the natural right to life and liberty does not then lead to the passive expectation they are secure. On the contrary, we came out of the state of nature to actively form civil societies and institutions of government for the express purpose of securing our inalienable rights.
Great post Mike!
Bill H. I have every right to consider that I should be able to say something in contradiction to the beliefs of a person who is a Nazi without being shot. Again, if one really believes in one’s cause, then no amount of questioning, lampooning or derogatory statements should be cause for anything other than telling someone what they are full of crap.
Only the weakest believer of any ideology cannot subject themselves to a different way of looking at things. If one is so weak that even hearing a different point of view must be eliminated by killing then how much does one really believe in one’s cause/ideology. I would say, not much at all. People who are secure in themselves do not need to kill others so they will not hear any questioning of their own system of belief!
Excellent post Mr. Appleton! Inalienable rights are not defended enough and it is usually only after they’ve been violated that any time is devoted to their meaning. We can see in this thread how subjectively people view the inalienable right of thought and speech. It’s not that complicated. We have the natural right to think and express ourselves only as far as it does not infringe the natural rights of others. I know this because a natural, inalienable right is one that I possess living inside a civil society or alone in the state of nature.
What has astonished me in this blog and others is the depths people will go to deny the existence of inalienable rights. I would think after the Age of Enlightenment and a war for independence, that we would be more resolute in our defense of those natural rights that brought us together in the first place. and because of human nature, I would be wrong.
Bill H and RTC,
That’s the slippery slope of perceived rights. Everyone thinks they have a right to certain actions, but when it comes before the court, the court has to decide which person’s right was violated, or not. In freedom of expression who’s point of view trumps the other’s?
Very timely piece Mike! I am always amazed that the Supreme Court can allow any restriction on the right to free speech, but is hesitant to allow similar common sense restrictions in the 2nd amendment. I am not confident that the Supreme Court would make the same ruling if the Wilson case was brought in front of it now.
I continue to be amazed at those who think that rights are conferred without concurrent responsibilities. I have the right to free speech, they believe, and there should never be any consequenses to my exercise of that right.
If I am standing next to a man wearing a Nazi uniform and I loudly denounce Nazism in scathing and derogatory terms, I should be surprised, shocked and highly offended if he pulls a gun and shoots me. He has no right to do that. Indeed he does not, but the speaker might still be alive had he considered the circumstances and been more judicious in his exercise of the right of free speech. Just because one has the right to do something does not mean that it is always a good idea to do it.
Certainly the governemnt should not prevent the speaker from deriding the Nazi standing next to the speaker, but the speaker himself might consider the circumstances and decide to exercise his right to free speech is a more moderate fashion.
Great article, Mike A! Very well put.
Mike A, Thanks for the timely and superb post. Mike A describes himself as a 1st Amendment absolutist. This is a good example. I have some friends I like very much who can see the folly and wrongheadedness of Muslim spokesmen who want blasphemy laws. But, they can’t see it in a guy like Mr. Donahue. Catholics are not killing people for desecrating their religion. That is a huge difference. But, guys like Donahue cannot see the big picture. He has a missionary zeal defending the Catholic Church. Missionaries serve an important and useful purpose. But, their zeal is sometimes misguided.
look at this garbage
Max Hastings is a fascist coward.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2904237/MAX-HASTINGS-liberals-defended-traitors-like-Snowden-Assange-look-photo-admit-deluded-fools.html
MAX HASTINGS: Why the liberals who defended traitors like Snowden and Assange should look at this photo and admit: We were deluded fools
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2904237/MAX-HASTINGS-liberals-defended-traitors-like-Snowden-Assange-look-photo-admit-deluded-fools.html#ixzz3OQyV4bCI
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook