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:
You and I have not always seen eye to eye but I agree with many of your points on this thread. Therefore, I hope you will forgive me if I take you to task over one detail.
You refer to Olly out of his name repeatedly by referring to him as “Oily”. This is the same type of cheap little dig that Paul Schulte indulges in when he refers to me as “RTD”. I think you’re better than Schulte; smarter and better written. You should stay classier than him, as well.
Olly and Schulte may be contemptible in their misguided ignorance, however, we owe them a nominal amount of respect. And addressing them correctly is the least we could do.
It results from tolerance. Suppose Olly was openly, proudly gay instead of delusionally misguided. We would regard him warmly in the spirit of tolerance and address him in a respectable manner, because sexuality can’t be helped. His wrong thinking should be regarded no differently than his sexuality.
It’s never surprising when Schulte engages in such antics, but it’s disappointing to see you resort to that as well.
RTC – I only refer to you as RTD when you misspell my name. It is nice to see the ad hominem attacks again. Good to see you are feeling better.
There are certain “public places” where there should be limits on Free Speech. The one I think of is the space on the wall in the outhouse right across from the toilet. There are two situations, one is protected and the other not so much. If there is no toilet paper and I leave a copy of Sears Roebuck Catalogue there for folks to use to read and wipe the rear then I have done both a public service and left published works which do not offend. If I leave a copy of the Koran then some will use it and some will be offended by my leaving it, and some will be offended by my using it. Another situation is if I hang on that wall a poster Donald Duck having sex with a human. Now that can be considered porn. It has no other purpose in the outhouse. For the government of the City of Ferguson to outlaw some of these exercises in Free Speech would put us all in a quandary. If Ferguson City Counsel and the Mayor and Chief of Police allowed toilet paper with photos of Al Sharpton in the outhouses then there would be calls for the firing of the Mayor and the Chief of Police. If this ever gets to a federal court then I am going to bark in favor of the Mayor and the Chief.
In our outhouse here at the marina there is no legitimate store bought toilet paper. The public has a choice not an echo. They can use the roll of toilet paper with Al Sharpton’s photo or the roll with the photo of Officer Wilson. In stall two, reserved for old artFays over 65, the choice is between Goldwater and LBJ.
Just finished a book by James Huston, Falcon Seven. A lawyer defending two Air Force pilots, kidnapped after a crash in Pakistan, taken to Holland, and charged at ICC. Enjoyed it tremendously.
Based on the descriptions of the ICC building and procedures, if the U.S. is giving them money, we should stop.
As a non-lawyer, these discussions, especially this one, are fascinating. I do enjoy them. Thank you.
Jill has stated her stances on these issues here before. She is even further to the left than I am. But I’m betting that several here didn’t want that little detail to be known in the context of her comments on this thread. You use people like Jill to help further your own agenda because she may agree with you in ONE area. But your vision is so narrow that you don’t recognize when push came to shove she would not help you further your agenda, when in came to these issues.
Good! That was wierd. Jill do you know this person? I kind of doubt she does, LOL!
Public Defender,
The tactic is to bait others into revealing their personally held beliefs and then pick them apart without having to commit their own for review. Some will go so far as to offer ‘other’s’ beliefs as if being a functional hand puppet demonstrates a commitment to the sharing of one’s own ideas. Why bother participating at all if you’re bringing nothing to the table?
“Why should Jill stand mute?” Because you are harassing her with rapid fire and stupid questions. The best way to have that negative behavior cease is to not even give it the dignity of a response. This is the last response you will receive from me. You are not worthy of one more word.
“Public Defender”, lol. Your “friend and client Jill”. Grandiose ideation. Why should Jill stand mute? She has a right to speak if she so chooses. Do you think you are insulting me by calling me an old lady? I AM an older lady at 62.
Inga – at 62 you are at the twilight of middle age.
I’m not advising my client and friend, Jill, “to take the 5th.” You have watched too many Perry Mason shows old lady. I am advising my client to stand mute. To not allow herself to be harassed and to spend her valuable time discussing with people of substance.
How do you know when the State no longer concerns itself with the duty to secure Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness?
When a 17 year old girl has the right to choose whether or not to have an abortion (without the consent of the parents) but if that same girl wanted to deny chemotherapy, neither the girl or her parents have the right to choose. As a matter of fact, the court can and has ordered the 17 year old be removed from her parents, confined and forced to complete the chemo regimen.
How enlightened of Connecticut; they’ve scored the trifecta; well done indeed!
Interesting article. On Donahue’s behalf, though, he was not talking about legal consequences, but the notion that words have power. Words can make people feel blessed and empowered, or they can womb and offend. He was simply talking about that which every young school boy learns at recess on the playground. If one kid tells another kid that his mother wears army boots, he may very likely find a knuckle sandwich landing on his grill. I doubt he was even hinting that it should be legal.
I hope all the lawyers drafting hate crime laws read your article and take it to heart. Society is a better place when people are able to speak their mind and engage in dialogue about different ideas.
Why should Jill need to take the Fifth? She should be willing to stand on principle. Why would she want to hide her stances on pertinent issues? I don’t think she would. Asking her stance on certain issues isn’t harassment, that is a silly assertion.
Inga – it is not a question of whether Jill needs to take the Fifth, but that she has the right to take the Fifth, a right you supported earlier.
Of course she has the right Paul, duh. But why should she invoke it? I’m quite sure she would be more than willing to state where she stands on these issues.
“As they say, “A thousand words are worth a picture.” Also, “What good is photojournalism if you really think about it?”
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B62HmSrIEAERuIV.jpg:large
http://thefederalist.com/2015/01/09/stop-lying-media-are-censoring-charlie-hebdo-out-of-fear-of-islam/?utm_source=The+Federalist+List&utm_campaign=c28fbd3f85-RSS_DAILY_EMAIL_CAMPAIGN&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_cfcb868ceb-c28fbd3f85-79248369
😀
Jill,
You are not required to answer any questions. When you see 3 rapid fire questions from a person with a history on harassing questions, the smart thing to do is not even acknowledge them. I’m sure you remember, this questioner has deluged you with silly, loaded and inane sophomoric questions in the past. As your appointed attorney, I suggest you stand mute.
Jill, are you in favor of a mass movements in trying to effect change?
Jill, am I correct in saying you are against torture? Am I correct is saying you are/were against the war in Iraq, Afganistan?
Jill, do you think that women should have the right to choose not to carry a pregnancy, to seek abortion? Do you think we have a right to health care?
Jill, you are / were a supporter of the Occupy movement, correct?