New York's highest court says there is "nothing mysterious" about the statutory provision applied in this case:Question 1: In America, the most vocal religious group is the religious right. To those of you who (last Wednesday) felt that the controversial anti-Islam film should not be made/shown, the Supreme Court says that the end of the road for that idea is that the Religious Right (along with Middle Eastern Muslims, presumably) will get to decide what you can and cannot see in American films and art. Are you okay with that?
It is simply this: that no religion, as that word is understood by the ordinary, reasonable person, shall be treated with contempt, mockery, scorn and ridicule. . . . [n15]This is far from the kind of narrow exception to freedom of expression which a state may carve out to satisfy the adverse demands of other interests of society. [n16] In seeking to apply the broad and all-inclusive definition of "sacrilegious" given by the New York courts, the censor is set adrift upon a boundless sea amid a myriad of conflicting currents of religious views, with no [p505] charts but those provided by the most vocal and powerful orthodoxies.
New York cannot vest such unlimited restraining control over motion pictures in a censor. Cf. Kunz v. New York, 340 U.S. 290 (1951). [n17] Under such a standard the most careful and tolerant censor would find it virtually impossible to avoid favoring one religion over another, and he would be subject to an inevitable tendency to ban the expression of unpopular sentiments sacred to a religious minority. Application of the "sacrilegious" test, in these or other respects, might raise substantial questions under the First Amendment's guaranty of separate church and state with freedom of worship for all.Question 2: I regularly hear (from students on both ends of the political spectrum) that the government has no business mucking around with religious idea about marriage. A) if you believe that, can you make the case that the government does have business mucking around with religious ideas about speech? B) If you don't believe that, does it follow that the government absolutely does have business restricting religious speech?
[n18] However, from the standpoint of freedom of speech and the press, it is enough to point out that the state has no legitimate interest in protecting any or all religions from views distasteful to them which is sufficient to justify prior restraints upon the 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. [n19]As a side-note, this case also foreshadowed the decision in Citizens v United about corporate speech rights. This 1952 decision said:
It is urged that motion pictures do not fall within the First Amendment's aegis because their production, distribution, and exhibition is a large-scale business conducted for private profit. We cannot agree. That books, newspapers, and magazines are published and sold for profit does not prevent them from being a form of expression whose liberty is safeguarded by the First Amendment. [n11] [p502] We fail to see why operation for profit should have any different effect in the case of motion pictures.
Question 3: All of that said, we now have the spectacle of the Attorney-General of the United States personally calling for the investigation of a private citizen on the pretext that he might have violated probation terms by using a computer. In a similar vein, some of you in class suggested that he be prosecuted for "inciting violence." Does that mean that now the government gets to arbitrarily decide who it wants to punish for blasphemy? Is that an example of what the Supreme Court warned of as an "inevitable tendency to ban the expression of unpopular sentiments sacred to a religious minority" that would lead to unequal treatment of religions by the state?
Question 2 A
ReplyDeleteMarriage holds both religious and legal ramifications making it practical in both religious and political/practical ways. Religiously marriage ties two individuals together forever in the eyes of God. Some couples take offense when considering two married people of the same sex equals to them in the eyes of God. To each their own theology, that’s the American way. Civil rights are separate from religious rights. Marriage carries much more than a title. Marriage has legal ramifications relating to joint benefit packages, social security benefits, hospital rights, etc. Where civil liberties are at risk the government has interest in ensuring people their rights and privileges. Where religious speech overlaps with civil liberties the government should take precedence. The federal government, unlike religious groups, was made by the people for the people and not to alienate folks opposed to certain religious beliefs. Where religious speech interferes with civil liberties it makes little sense for a minority to dictate to the majority. Yes the Federal government was created to prevent the minorities from being trampled on by the majority but no rule is right 100% of the time. If someone were to claim that they were a pacifist could they have their tax dollars removed from funding the military?
The government has a right and a need to get involved with controversial religious speech in order to preserve national security or the public interest. It is important for the government not to impede or restrict the practice of any and all religions, but along with that is the understanding that free practice and expression of religion does not end with a direct result of violence. With so many foreign threats to our country it is unwise to give dangerous free speech precedence over preserving the safety of America. Religious speech and ideas can be extremely influential and even powerful enough to start wars, and by restricting religious speech that could incite violent conflicts the government is helping to maintain peace.
ReplyDeleteIn answer to question 2, part a:
ReplyDeleteAt the basis of both arguments is separation of church and state. To be true to that as much as possible, certain freedoms have to be granted, like marriage and religious speech. At the end of the day, if something does not harm someone else, impede another person's civil liberties of life, liberty, and property, then the government should not regulate. The Bill of Rights was written to protect individuals rights from the government. People will always have opinions and should be allowed to express those opinions, religious or against religion or about neither, without fear of persecution. No harm, no foul. An argument could be made that certain speeches or words can hurt others, but most of the time, those arguments are stretching a bit and if the tables were turned they would not want the government regulated them. So, for either side, the government should stick to the Bill of Rights, the Constitution and keep people out of harm's way; instead of regulating situations that do not hurt anyone.
I'm bad at publishing apparently, this comment is by Kaitlin Mayo. Ooops.
Delete2A) Ideas about religious marriage and religious speech differ in a number of ways. While I believe that the government has no business messing around with either of them it's for different reasons.
ReplyDeleteWhen it comes to religion and marriage people often think of Amendment 1 and how Christians believe marriage is strictly between a man and a woman. The side I see is that though marriage is traditionally between a man and woman times have changed. There are a lot more reasons to get married including visitation rights at hospitals and tax benefits. So, while I agree that the government should not have a say in religious marriage it's for different reasons than religious speech.
The argument can also be made that religious speech should not be interfered with by the government. As stated by the Supreme Court, unless a "clear and present danger" is present then someone cannot have their First Amendment rights limited. I believe that freedom of speech is essential when it comes to being American. If the government tries to control what can be said in regards to religious speech then I wonder what will come next. Having the right to say what you want about any religion is part of being American, as well as accepting that others can say what they want about your beliefs too.
3) The U.S. Attorney General calling out the film-maker for violating his probation by using a computer reminds me of Al Capone being brought down by tax evasion. It is unfortunate that in something so clearly "wrong" in the eyes of nearly everyone it is so difficult to find grounds for prosecution.
ReplyDeleteNo, this does not mean that the government gets to arbitrarily decide who it wants to punish for blasphemy. It's such a shame - the very things that make us great, i.e. freedom of speech, are the very things that are abused by ignorant men and women to create violent global uprisings. It all falls back to the paradox of freedom - what is it, anyway? Perhaps the man was free to make the video. In effect, perhaps the people reacting violently in the Middle East were free to react angrily...but I do not reason that it was their right to react violently. However, THEY believe it was their right to react violently. So who gets to decide what is right? Is it now our right to reciprocate that violence in light of the Americans that were killed? It seems that when I ask questions I only end up with more questions.
I also wanted to argue that if a person's First Amendment right is only to be revoked in the face of "clear and present danger", that provoking a religion with historically violent radical members is, in fact, putting SOMEONE in clear in present danger. Therefore, should the maker of the video be held in contempt for the danger he caused others to encounter as a direct result of his free speech?
DeleteIn response to question 2A, I do believe that the government should not get into the business of marriage solely based on religious ideas. What I mean by this is that if we, as a country, want to stop or not allow homosexuals to get married, we should have legitimate reasons and excuses why homosexuals are not allowed to get married. Religious ideas and/or Christianity should never play a role for establishing a law or statute in our society. I realize this would be extremely hard to accomplish, but the majority of laws in this country have actual non-religious reasons why they were put into place. I feel that the government does have reason to “muck around” with religious ideas in speech when the speech insights violence. For example, the recent YouTube Anti-Islam video started quite a bit of violence in the Middle East and throughout the world. Although the violence has not really occurred here, the government should get involved before the backlash of Middle East violence does reach the States. I also believe that it should not be just the majority who we need to look out for. I believe that the minority deserve more rights and protections because the majority holds so much power. For example, just because Christianity is the majority religion in this country, it does not mean they get more religious speech rights. I think that if a word like “God” that is inserted into pledges, platforms, or coined on money offends most of the minority, the government should get involved and stop this.
ReplyDelete