Should we add standing up for American values to the list of jobs that Americans won’t do? There’s a good quote in James Taranto’s post:
In any case, Americans have an unqualified right to disrespect religion. “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,” Justice Tom C. Clark wrote in Joseph Burstyn Inc. v. Wilson (1952).
You had queried over at OTB whether the fighting words exemption to the First Amendment was merely theoretical. I googled around a little on the weekend and found a few interesting cases.
In Goodling v. Wilson (1972), the SCOTUS overturned the conviction for breach of peace against a man who shouted at police officers: “White son of a bitch, I’ll kill you,” “You son of a bitch, I’ll choke you to death,” and “You son of a bitch, if you ever put your hands on me again, I’ll cut you all to pieces.”
In R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul (1992), the court dismissed a case against kids burning a cross in front of a black family’s home.
Without getting into the details, parts of the problems in these cases are that the statutes are either overbroad or too narrow. In fact, it was both at the same time in the St. Paul case. The majority assumes burning a cross is fighting words, but finds the statute is too narrow in focussing only on offenses to certain groups (Jews and Blacks). The minority agreed the case should be dismissed, but did not assume that burning a cross is fighting words and faulted the statute for being overbroad in potentially criminizing all cross-burnings, including those that are part of expressive speech, such as at a rally.
I doubt one can draft a law in this area that will survive judicial scrutiny.
Also, I re-read the Illinois S.Ct. case on the NAZI parade through Skokie. Holocuast survivovers are given no special favors and are expected to look away from the parade. “Fighting words” seem to exist conceptually only in person-to-person experiences; media, such as movies, might never be eligible as a category.
Blasphemy should be well done.
http://www.jesusandmo.net/2011/08/17/edge2/
Steve
Also, I re-read the Illinois S.Ct. case on the NAZI parade through Skokie.
I can’t believe you mentioned Illinois Nazis, actual honest-to-Hitler Illinois Nazis, and didn’t say the words.
@icepick, I got the impression that Dave didn’t like that Blues Brother quote last time I used it, and I’m already stinking up his joint with offensive language (to people and dogs no less).
“We reject all efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others.” President Barack Obama in an ad airing on Pakistani TV
Nice way to stand up for freedom of speech. Not to mention he will now have the Muslim world wondering why he hasn’t banned the video, because he has just made it clear that offending Islam is against the principles and policies of the United States government. We’re going to get the worst of all possible results from these kinds of stupid statements.
@Ice- It helps to know what these other countries believe. They dont have freedom of speech. They often tend to assume that all published material has the approval of the government. I fail to see how this is denying freedom of speech. I fail to see how this is an apology. We should reject efforts to denigrate other’s religious beliefs. To the best of my knowledge, there have been no attempts to stop anyone’s speech, except for some Muslims.
Steve
We should reject efforts to denigrate other’s religious beliefs.
So the Federal government is going to take back the award it paid out for Piss Christ?
That’s all bullshit, steve. I know these other countries don’t have freedom of speech. That’s why what WE have, the most expansive free speech rights around, is so damned precious and so worthy of protection.
Obama is making a case that is a complete and total lie. He doesn’t believe it, as was made clear when he was caught snidely dismissing believers as “bitter clingers” because they wouldn’t vote for him. Hillary doesn’t believe it as she’s been caught laughing in public at lines like “Fuck you, God!” And I’m willing to bet you’re pretty dismissive of Christian Scientists and New Agers that reject medical treatment in favor of prayers or crystal therapy.
Is Obama criticizing Bill Maher, who made an entire movie of his own to mock religion? (Including Islam, it should be noted.) Is Obama asking that that movie be removed from the public sphere? Is he making “sad face” about what a shifty character Maher is? Is he giving back the money Maher has given his campaign?
Did Hillary come out after seeing “The Book of Mormon” and tell us how horrible it is that those freaky magic-underwear wearing Mormons were getting mocked? Or did she sit there yucking it up?
No, they’re not doing any of that. Because they don’t believe in the crap they’re peddling. They didn’t believe it then, and they don’t believe it now. So given that they clearly, demonstrably don’t believe a goddamned thing they’re saying, why do you believe it?