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.
Issac…at least I admitted what might be my personal reason to distrust & dislike hugging and cheek kissing. I watch the communal cheek kissing by Hollande today…didn’t notice any prolonged inspection of eyes or faces. Just some de rigueur, apparently, sans much emotion, smooching. Thanks, I’ll prefer a hand shake, and in my neighborhood, a shoulder tap to my own shoulder when meeting a woman I do not know very well. In both cases the eye contact is prolonged.
Or do I misunderstand your point?
Airdog
‘off-putting’, too bad. BTW, lots of opportunity to gaze into the eyes of the encounter when you shake a hand. The pecks on the cheeks are usually preceded and followed by eye contact. To do these things without greeting first with the eyes and following through after, during a brief or lengthy conversation with eye contact does not fit. Regardless of where one is in the world the strongest gesture one can make is eye contact. It might be threatening but it is always strong. Typically it is just respectful. No one wants to deal with someone who won’t look you in the eye, even the French.
“A case can be made that some form of government regulation is required to control the distribution and availability of sexualized images to children because parents can’t always be on hand.”
RTC,
Sure. A case can always be made that some form of government regulation is required on nearly anything imaginable. However, we should not want them to regulate because they can; I want them to regulate because the citizen can’t. We have a responsibility as citizens to be self-reliant because we know best what we need. When we give up that choice and become dependent on others to make our choices for us then we have effectively alienated ourselves from our natural rights. We can no longer claim we are free or in pursuit of our own happiness. This is expressed by Kant in his essay on enlightenment:
“Laziness and cowardice are the reasons why such a large proportion of men, even when nature has long emancipated them from alien guidance, nevertheless gladly remain immature for life. For the same reasons, it is all too easy for others to set themselves up as their guardians. It is so convenient to be immature! If I have a book to have understanding in place of me, a spiritual adviser to have a conscience for me, a doctor to judge my diet for me, and so on, I need not make any efforts at all. I need not think, so long as I can pay; others will soon enough take the tiresome job over for me.”
Now, if my views are misguided then please identify how so that I can provide my reasoning in defense or adjust my views to your more reasoned approach. After all, if we are not willing to humble ourselves to alternative points of view then we are destined to a life of immaturity; wouldn’t you agree?
I’m sorry: I should have said: “The [SPLC] used civil law to suppress the resurgence…”
I’m only a civilian here, but I thought that the Bill of Rights applied only to the relationship between government and citizen. Isn’t there a concept of libel in civil law? I know that the Southern Poverty Law Center used this to suppress resurgence of the KKK in the 80’s and 90’s. Would this be an avenue for Muslims to respond to speech that they consider hateful?
And how does “freedom of the press” and “freedom of expression” relate to those of a foreign nation that clearly express that certain forms of expression are considered an act of war? In defending such expression, does the nation become a party to the war? Does the citizen have the right to impose that cost on the nation (much as second amendment purists insist that the Army patrol the Mexican border to protect from gangs provisioned by American gun manufacturers)?
In the Hebdo case, the French government at times shut down embassies to prevent harm to local workers when Hebdo insisted on publishing a piece intended to offend Muslim sensibilities. Does any private citizen have the right to such conduct? Or have they become party to a ‘war’ that may be considered ‘cultural’ on their end, but a cause for armed aggression on the other? Does military law then become applicable?
RTC and Olly, I have to say that using Oily was an honest mistake on my part. That’s how I read the name and I will apologize for this misread and misstatement. RTC, thank you for pointing out my mistake and doing so in such a decent manner. Olly, I apologize.
Annie/Inga,
Yes, I stand by all of the above and have never pretended otherwise. Now please explain how my positions have any relevance to what I am writing on this particular topic.
Olly:
I wouldn’t call you a knucklehead because that would not be civil. But I respect your right to hold whatever misguided notions of government and society you please.
May I say that I’m in partial agreemnent with you that people have the power to choose whether they may be subjected to objectionable content…to a point.
For instance, it’s very admirable of you to steer your child clear of Vegas strip clubs, but an industry that pulls in ten billion dollars annually has other ways to reach and affect young and impressionable consumers, particularly through suggestive advertising, the precursor to porn. A case can be made that some form of government regulation is required to control the distribution and availability of sexualized images to children because parents can’t always be on hand.
RTC – your major challenge with the other bloggers here is that you think that you alone are the bearer of truth and light. The rest of us are misguided, unless we agree with you. Sadly, for you anyway, we feel the same way about you. 🙂
Issac….shaking hands, or tapping your own shoulder, for men, when meeting women, where I live is hardly the same as cheek kissing. In both former cases cited, you can still see the eyes of the greeter. If I cannot see your eyes and see what your hands are doing, I do not trust the greeting one whit. That said, I am very much not a “huggy” person….which may explain the real reason I find it off-putting.
Aridog – I think hugginess comes from the family you grow up in. Mine was not huggy, so I am uncomfortable being around huggy people.
Schulte: My misspelling of your name was an honest mistake, which you admit to using as a pretext for your intentional insult. By your own admission, you engaged in small-minded behavior. Some things never change, like your complete misunderstanding of the meaning of ad hominem.
RTC – having been the subject of a variety of probably thousands of attacks at this point on this blog, I am well aware of what ad hominem is, including your last one. I keep a list of types of ad hominem attacks by my computer.
Given our history I do not believe in “honest mistakes.”
Aridog
The kissing on the cheeks in France and many other countries may be a tradition, but one that serves a useful purpose. People in France, as in most countries, live close together and often don’t share the same opinion regarding most things. DeGaul once quipped, “How do you govern a country that produces over 350 types of cheese?” This is what makes a society wonderful. A teenage girl or boy will leave and return to the house/apartment several times in a day. There are always complications but they are somehow tempered when one habitually or otherwise pecks the other on each cheek. It’s hard to stay angry. It’s the little things.
In my neighborhood, I was an ‘etranger’. However, on passing, I regularly received a handshake from the men and a double peck from the women. It was vastly better than a nod or nothing. Old friends who had known each other all their lives planted two sets of pecks on their friends.
After moving back to North America I continued to shake a man’s hand and toss a quick hug to a woman when meeting for the first time in a while. Although it was not the norm, I found that it was received with delight from almost all. I still shake my neighbors’ hands the first time we cross paths each day. He is a gun nut and voted Republican. It’s the little things.
Clarification: I realize that the President of the USA in the front ranks of this rally might have been considered just too risky by the Secret Service. He would have been target-one. Although the French military are v-e-r-y capable at suppressing violence once placed in position to do so…while unarmed police per se is sheer folly and a false hope. It is a weakness that makes regular citizen sitting duck as well as their own ranks. Unarmed police are not police at all….they are baby sitters, barely sufficient in our world today. .
Mike Appleton…there is very little in your post that I can criticize, nearly nothing…and nothing at all that substantive. I wish I could write so well. You cite past cases and circumstances that are germane not diversions and explain your reasons. Few of us do so well, perhaps me among the worst. Your analysis is very good.
That said: I’m watching the huge rally in Paris, on both Fox and Al Jazeera simultaneously. I am a little surprised that Abu Mazen…aka Mahmound Abbas of the PLO is in the second rank of world leaders (heads of state), and has managed to wriggle his way to the first rank, roughly four positions over from Benjamin Netanyahu. Several of the heads of state obviously have security personnel of their lands along side of them. Abu Mazen was seen shoving a female aside to get to the front. Quite frankly, Al Jazeera is providing the widest coverage of the first two ranks. Holder is no where to be seen, nor should he be…at a bare minimum the putz John Kerry, a French speaking secretary of State in the USA should have been sent….he might have madeit to the 3rd row. Obama’s “selfie bud” the blond female leader from Denmark is there, if Obama had gone he could have gotten another selfie. 🙂 Finally, I don’t recall such a gathering for our 9/11…but I may have missed it because my Army position at that time was a whirlwind of messaging & activity and I didn’t have much time to watch news at leisure. Finally, I get a fleeting impression that the Europeans still do not get it …. but the demonstration is still a positive idea. Postscript: why do Europeans et al still do this kissing of both cheeks in greeting…when doing that you cannot see the opposites eyes, where the true feelings are reflected.
rcocean
“unreliable” ? Humbert is Nabakov’s vehicle for the story, both victim and perp. What Nabakov does is tie the reader’s questions up at the end. Lolita states that she participated freely in sexual adventures with Quilty along with, either made up or real, her friends in school. Quilty is guilty of taking advantage of this and pays the price. Quilty is a clear cut narcissist who roams high school theatre programs looking for sex with minors. The minors are post pubescent horny girls. Society is supposed to keep the two separate. Lolita’s mother, or society, is too wrapped up in her own sexuality and problems to pay attention to the converging of older experienced men and younger simply horny and adventurous girls. The Hungry Hunter.
Nabakov, like any great artist, leaves it up to the reader. However, in the end, he creates a Lolita that has no damaging baggage, is not much different that Quilty in accepting nature in what she has done, and who looks to the future with as pedestrian a life as can be imagined: a small inheritance, a ‘handyman’ husband, going to Alaska to ‘start out anew’, and of course a baby on the way.
The essence of Lolita, the book is the interpretation of society’s position on sex: when, how, with whom, etc and the basic urges of its participants, both natural as with Lolita and perverse as seen with Quilty. Humbert is the most reliable as he embodies both, just like most of us.
Wadewilliams, Falcon Seven is fiction, especially the end. But Huston has his military details accurate. And it could happen
The 1952 decision was terrible and a good example of why Judicial power should be limited. The 1st and 14th amendments didn’t change between 1915 and 1952, the justices did. I don’t think the 14th amendment was passed to give the SCOTUS a blank check to rewrite state laws, yet that’s exactly what the SCOTUS after WW2, did. Nor do I think movies are an art, Hollywood calls itself the “Move Industry” for a reason. But that horse is out of the barn, and its only a debating point in 2015.
“Lolita is portrayed as a designer of her sexual relations with both Humbert as well as the narcissist Clare Quilty.”
That’s because the unreliable narrator Humbert – is the one who portrays Lolita that way. If you read it closely, Lolita doesn’t design anything. Humbert is simply lying or deluded.
Olly,
No one is tougher on women than other women. That’s why men still rule the world.
RTC,
I gave up being concerned with the names people give me somewhere in my primary education. As far as your commentary; I have to believe you have more to contribute than that drivel. For all of its value, you could have knocked out 4 paragraphs and simply said Olly is a knucklehead. I won’t expect you to provide anything to support your opinion which would align you very nicely with others in this blog. Thanks.
Sandi neglects an small point …. Falcon Seven is fiction.
Probably not relevant, but it seems that some religious folks are always complaining about being persecuted by the courts permitting their concept of ills of society. However, it appears just the opposite, where some religious folks use religious and political power to force people to adhere to their dogma. Yesterday, it was restrictions on alcohol, interracial marriages, then today abortion, and tomorrow it will be that everybody will have to go to church on Sunday or face a $500 fine, imprisonment for no more than one year, or both. So, the issue is should we allow our freedom of speech to be dictated and thus curtailed by any religion so that the U.S. may not interfere with people’s freedom of religion?