Amidst the Danish toon non-troversy, the Muslim Council lost a vote in the UK parliament this week on a bill banning insults to religion (via Asians in Media).
Supporters of the bill wanted to ban anti-Muslim ads by right-wing political parties. They also argued Hindus and Muslims deserved the same protection against incitement to violence already granted to Sikhs, Jews and Christians under racial hatred and blasphemy laws.
Opponents, such as comedian Rowan Atkinson, said the bill was a sop to Muslim voters, was overbroad and would also ban religious satire like Monty Python’s The Life of Brian. The bill passed in a weakened form with only the hatred and incitement to violence planks intact. Incidentally, Mr. Bean is married to a desi woman.
Salman Rushdie… “There are moments when one is profoundly grateful for, and proud of, British Parliamentary democracy. This is one of them…”Hanif Kureishi… “This is an amazing result and a great achievement for writers and intellectuals when they unite…”
Hari Kunzru… “I was very happy to wake up to this news. The Government’s loss is Britain’s gain… This defeat should be another signal to the Government that in its disregard for civil liberties, it’s losing touch with the mainstream of British opinion…”
[PEN…] “… It will now be criminal to publish posters showing women of many colours in hijabs with the slogan ‘Muslims go home…’ ” [Link]
That blasphemy laws still exist on Britain’s books, pushed by the government church and enforceable by the state, makes me doubly glad of the upcoming 230th anniversary of American independence.
By the way, U.S. commenters here have been very confused about free speech and the First Amendment. Constitutional experts, feel free to chime in:
It’s public, not private. You have the right to say whatever you wish in a publicly-owned space*. That means your blog or a taxpayer-funded city street — not someone else’s blog (we have an anti-idiotarian comment policy), my living room or a privately-owned shopping mall. The Fifth Amendment guarantees the right to private property.
As a general rule, the owner of private property is free to restrict expressive activitites of others on the property. You are under no First Amendment obligation to admit people into your living room and then listen to them blow off about any topic of their choice. Similarly, an owner of a restaurant has no duty to allow persons who dislike the food she serves into the restaurant so the person can annoy customers or discourage others from eating there. [Link]
<
p>It’s about the government, not private citizens. You have the right to insult a prophet, garland a deity with penises, abuse call center workers or insult an ethnic group. The government cannot stop you. But your customers have the right to boycott. The Constitution guarantees free expression, not income.
* Except threatening or inciting violence or creating a public nuisance
Related posts: Provocation, The Danish cartoon controversy
The Anti-Blasphemy law is a dead law – it is never used. In reality, Britain, as far as Christianity is concerned, is the most blasphemous nation on Earth – much more than, for example, America.
ah!! mr. bean – we’z proud of you today.
above is an excerpt from the weekly column by the wonderful Doug saunders, reporting for the G&M from Europe.
Well put Manish. Excellent post, especially in the current climate.
They also argued Hindus and Muslims deserved the same protection against incitement to violence already granted to Sikhs, Jews and Christians via under racial hatred and blasphemy laws.
This doesnt make a lot of sense. Can someone please explain this?
Sikhs and Jews are considered a race, and therefore eligible for different protections from Hindus and Muslims.
Everyone has the same protections – the laws on incitement to violence cover all threats made against specific groups and people. Sikhs were defined as an ethnic group in the 1980’s due to a High Court case over discrimination against a Sikh student at a school in the Midlands.
This law was pushed for by the Muslim Council of Britain to become an ipso facto blasphemy law to outlaw critiicsm of Islam. The amendments mean that Muslims will still be protected when far right racists incite violence and make threats to Muslims – but it will not protect Islam or Muslim beliefs. The existing laws did not protect the Sikh religious beliefs, Jewish beliefs or Christian beliefs.
This law was most vehemently pursued by Iqbal Sacranie leader of the Muslim Council of Britain, who in 1989 said that death would have been too good for Salman Rushdie. It is a good thing that the law was defeated. It was instituted as a sop by Tony Blair to try and buy Muslim votes.
Yesterday’s ABC’s NIGHTLINE had a piece on blasphemy. Its video can be seen here. They mentioned that a movie was banned in the US, based on charge that its blasphemous. Supreme court ruled against the ban and that opened the flood gate for “South Park” type shows.
That means your blog or a taxpayer-funded city street — not someone else’s blog (we have an anti-idiotarian comment policy), my living room or a privately-owned shopping mall.
As a matter of constitutional law, you are absolutely right.
I do think that the rights in the constitution can be expanded by amendment/legislation if they dont take away from other rights already guaranteed in the constitution.
I do think that people in big malls should be accorded some level of protection from random search/seizure or other aggressions.
It doesnt matter to insignificant me that the people who are stripping away my rights by searching me without suspicion are hoodlum security guards hired by xyz mall. Little ol’ me is as powerless against Wal Mart as I am against the government.
I think the law needs to keep pace with the changes in society where corporations now are bigger than state governments and sometimes badder than foreign dictatorships.
In some of the smaller cities, the city center mall or whatever its called is the only place where people go to outside their homes/schools/churches. The city government itself is usually heavily involved in the regulation and the development of these malls. I question the value of giving these malls the ability to keep out anyone they want based on dress, speech they dont like or political opinions.
I do understand that we need to keep out government from private property/homes but we also need to update our laws so that they can reflect living in 2006 America and not 1776 Philadelphia.
one thing, i think blasphemy laws are ridiculous, period. but, some ppl seem to think that because there is a blasphemy law that pertains to christianity in england it is only “fair” that this be extended to christianity. anyone hear that two wrongs don’t make a right?
as for freedom of speech, i don’t think anyone is confused, they are conflating issues in bad faith. it’s bullshit. ann coulter cried censorship when national review dropped her, and she is a lawyer from the right who wouldn’t have normally appealed to such fallacious reasoning, but it is a nice talking point if you are superificial and it wastes people’s time arguing that no, it isn’t censorship.
as for freedom of speech, i don’t think anyone is confused, they are conflating issues in bad faith.
You will be surprised by how many people conflate private actors with state actors when it comes to the protection of speech under the First Amendment.
Oh, debauchery. How I love it when you talk dirty.
You will be surprised by how many people conflate private actors with state actors when it comes to the protection of speech under the First Amendment.
no, i see/here it all the time. my point is that the people making the argument who aren’t retards know very well what you are going to say, they just are out to say something that sounds rhetorically high minded and suck some of the oxygen out of your argument by side-tracking you. it might not be conscious, but the logic is pretty obvious and simple, but hey, perhaps i have a higher perception of human intelligence than thou….
no, i see/here it all the time. my point is that the people making the argument who aren’t retards know very well what you are going to say
I agree.
Wow, America roolz, eh. Thanks for telling me. Your analysis of the British parliamentary debate would have been significantly stronger if you’d kindly left this out.
You chaps and your Anglican laws are so quaint, old Bean 🙂
Manish,
I have been biting my tongue since I read this post earlier in the day. I cannot hold anymore. Technically, you are right as well as wrong.
Do as you wish – after this is just a blog.
Technically, you made a huge mistake and that makes your assertion now wrong.
About six months, you guys publicly asked for money as donation. The moment you ask money as a donation as an open announcement – your blog even though is privately-administered but now is open and superceded by public laws (1st amendment), and in part public-owned. To keep keep public laws out of private space – you cannot ask for open donation. You can ask for subscription. There is huge technical difference between subscription and donation.
Like in charities, once they publicly solicit for money for donation then they are not exempt from the public laws. That is why their actions are not longer their exclusive purview. The same holds once a private organization accepts public money (tax payer money). That is why even Private Universities in America if they accept a fraction of Public money – they still have the independence in their day to day functioning but the Public law supersedes them.
That is why print media in America never seek money through donation. Often, media is privately owned and is not traded through publicly – to keep control.
However, a church or temple asking donation privately from their parishnors are exempt but once it solicited through a public announcement, it is a different ball game.
Therefore, in the strict-sense you cannot technicality you ban any speech unless it is by the public law (meaning thereby by the US Federal Laws, since the blog is registered in US). Sure, you can always invoke “clause that a comment that can cause public disturbance and potentially break the laws of the land”, you are free to delete them. I think on those grounds, you can censor anyone.
You are the writers of the blog and own it – but your underwriters are now partially public. All you can invoke is artistic freedom, and freedom and independence to function – That is fair.
If you had asked money from VC or a handful of people in private, then you can have any arrangement with them (it is between you and them).
PS: How I know all this? There was a huge controversy here in a private school – they had seeked public money in past and therefore, city imposed rules on them and they had to obey.
PPS: Do check laws when public donation has been seeked.
PPPS: You do what ever you want. After all, this is just a blog. I am just having fun.
Kush, you’re essentially arguing that this isn’t a privately-owned blog once you accept donations. It reminds me of securities law surrounding share offerings, but it doesn’t seem accurate. I don’t think your experience with private university donations scales down to blog level:
No securities/shares/ownership offered or issued
No taxpayer funds (true public money) accepted
A post here is a private communication with readers; we don’t have email addresses, so it’s the only way to do it
Virtually all donors were regular readers/commenters (what in securities law is called sophisticated investors), not lay members of the public
Common man analogy: if you ask me for five bucks and I give it to you, I don’t suddenly own a share of your earnings or your property, unless an explicit contract was made
Free speech cases usually state the opposite, that soliciting donations is itself a form of free speech:
Where I think this applies is entities which accept taxpayer monies. E.g. radio stations: they accept FCC regulation because they have been granted a scarce public resource, a slice of the finite radio spectrum.
No taxpayer funds (true public money) accepted
key. i would like a clarification on kush’s private school analogy, my impression is that the problem with most private institutions is that their students receive government subsidized grants or loans. some institutions, like hillsdale college, specifically refuse to enroll students who accept these (they provide their own funds) so that they don’t have to be beholden to gov. mandates.
Those are usually legislative mandates, not constitutional– e.g. ‘we won’t give you government funding unless you allow military recruiters on campus.’
Manish,
Please do not take me too seriously. I am more having fun.
You can alway invoke NPR like fully-indepenent model for sepia mutiny.
NPR retains full indepencce. Look, I am now speaking in your favor.
Correction: That is why print media in America never seek money through donation.
I correct myself – NPR and PBS does.
The moment you ask money as a donation as an open announcement – your blog even though is privately-administered but now is open and superceded by public laws (1st amendment), and in part public-owned. To keep keep public laws out of private space – you cannot ask for open donation.
Kush: You are wrong on all fronts.
Therefore, in the strict-sense you cannot technicality you ban any speech unless it is by the public law (meaning thereby by the US Federal Laws, since the blog is registered in US). Sure, you can always invoke “clause that a comment that can cause public disturbance and potentially break the laws of the land”, you are free to delete them. I think on those grounds, you can censor anyone.
You are wrong again.
You are the writers of the blog and own it – but your underwriters are now partially public. All you can invoke is artistic freedom, and freedom and independence to function – That is fair.
Even more wrong.
I am sorry to say that everything in the above post is substantively wrong and wholly devoid of any legal merit.
I even tried to find something I could agree with but failed.
Instead of analyzing line by line, let me add this:
There is a big difference between public (government given money) and money from public at large. Public doesnt mean private actors. Public here means the state. I think you might be conflating public (state) with people at large who are private actors.
You are a little confused on donations. Just because an organization takes donation, it means nothing.
Also you need to be careful with government regulation and public property. By public property I mean property owned by the government like a public park, sidewalks etc., Just because the government regulates something does not turn that place into a public place.
– No securities/shares/ownership offered or issued – Virtually all donors were regular readers/commenters (what in securities law is called sophisticated investors), not lay members of the public
Even if we stipulate to the above happening here, it does not turn this blog into a publicly owned sidewalk or city square.
If there are securities involved, shares offered, then the SEC/Government can regulate the conduct of the employess pertaining to the exchange of securities/exchange etc.,
It will make no difference to the fact that little ol’ me still has no rights to free speech under the First Amnedment at Google’s office whose shares are publicly traded.
Government regualion by itself does not lead to any enhanced rights of free speech per se under the First Amendment.
Manish: I am impressed by your level of clarity on basic constitutional protections, especially under the First Amendment.
I know of some lawyers (they dont practice constitutional law though) and they might actually benefit from having the same level of clarity that you have.
I do think that your understanding of the Fifth Amendment is a little funky, but you can always read up on it 😉
Debauchery’s publicly-traded company is a good counterexample. Another is churches which accept taxpayer ‘faith-based funding.’ They don’t become subject to laws against religious discrimination.
I agree that there’s an erroneous conflation here between public as in taxes and public as in Internet.
We bloggers who give offense must be especially cognizant of these things 🙂
You must excuse me, my understanding of the sanctity of private property is shaky. I grew up with desi siblings 😉
Question: People who get convicted for securities fraud are often indicted on an additional count of something called “mail fraud” which I understand means using the postal service or telephone lines to conduct their illegal transactions. Can something like that apply to blogs as well since they use cable to communicate? I mean does this take away from the notion that a blog is a private space since they’re actually using government (or business) services in order to operate?
well, i’m glad that the benevolent oligarchs still have full power of authority.
y’all are geeks! but i still love you.
Question: People who get convicted for securities fraud are often indicted on an additional count of something called “mail fraud” which I understand means using the postal service or telephone lines to conduct their illegal transactions.
The offices of these security firms who commit securities frauds/mail fraud do not become open venues for free speech. They still remain private entities even though they have committed an act which is proscribed by the government. The ‘public wrong’ does not turn them into public/state actors. People have no right to free speech in a private entity under the First Amendment. The First Amendment only addresses the state actors (government) and not private companies.
Can something like that apply to blogs as well since they use cable to communicate? I mean does this take away from the notion that a blog is a private space since they’re actually using government (or business) services in order to operate?
No, the blog still remains a private actor.
The only way First Amendment will apply to this blog is when this blog becomes a state/public/government actor. For that the government will have to either be so closely connected to this blog that the blog becomes an arm of the government and that will include a partnership for profits, plus investment, plus joint responsibility plus joint decision plus aid et cetera. or the government will have to perform such functions through this blog which traditionally are exclusively performed by the Government.
The mere fact that the blog violates a federal/state law does not turn this blog into a state actor.
Public here means state/government action and not the people at-large.
Hope this clears up things.
Yes, thanks. I was just wondering because I often see disclaimers on (private) websites saying they’re not responsible for views expressed by others etc. Guess they’re just being overly cautious.
ALM,
I agree with you. Thanks for all the replies.
Moreover, I wanted to give Manish hard time, and nothing beyond that. Somebody has to.
Probably, caught my tongue-in-cheek humor. You know Harvard cannot circumvent First Amendment even if it is a private university. But then they are bound since they have received tax payers money. I agree the difference between public (tax payers) and public, as of random collection of guys and gals. No arguement there with you.
However, you are missing some new technicalities: FEC’s (Federal Election Commission) role in blogosphere. What I gather FEC wants blogs endorsing candidates should explicitly state that whether money came to them through PAC (Political Action Committee). Remember Swift Boat dudes.
I read in past how you solicit money can also define you – public solicition vs. carrying a hat in your place of workship. Not remember the fine points though.
Blogs are private actor (no argument).
Ah – that’s about libel. Newspapers can be held responsible for libellous articles that they publish, because they have some control. Blogs and bulletin boards want to make clear that they do not endorse the comments being made, and therefore that they are not legally responsible for them.
“Ah – that’s about libel. “
Ennis,
I agree. Also beyond that. Protection from laws like Patriot Act, etc. There was Middle Eastern student in Idaho who was held under Patriot Act because his websites linked to sites with “questionable” material.
I think his lawyer argued that he had no control over them. His case was more complicated. But I am just bringing it up.
Basically, everyone in print media puts a disclaimer.
Somebody has to.
didn’t we make fun of manish for being a fat-ass recently?
However, you are missing some new technicalities: FEC’s (Federal Election Commission) role in blogosphere. What I gather FEC wants blogs endorsing candidates should explicitly state that whether money came to them through PAC (Political Action Committee). Remember Swift Boat dudes.
I dont think I am missing any technicalities because these prospective technicalities dont affect the ability of a random person to practice his First Amendment right to free speech.
These prospective FEC regulations, will make no difference whatsoever when it comes to giving you or me (random people) a right to demand free speech on this blog.
I dont know the details of the FEC regulations and what such a law will entail. If the Blogs raise money for a political party/candidate, they and the recipient might be governed by campaign finance laws.
This of course will still not turn this blog into a public area. I think you are missing this key element here. I dont have a right to go and practice my free speech in the office of a PAC. Just because there are regulations on what and how a PAC can donate/raise for a politician, does not create a right for average joe to practice his First Amedment right to free speech in the publication/email/office of the PAC.
To reiterate and further clarify, there are two issues here.
One is the right of this blog to say what they want to say and whether they can raise money for a politician and whether a politician can place ads on this blog and whether this blog can advocate for a politician and does that mean its covered by campaign finance laws….
however
whatever, the answers to the above issues, the fact remains that you and me and razib (i.e. random visitors) will still not get a right to practice our free speech here under the First Amendment irrespective of how the above issues are decided.
I guess I am doing a poor job of explaining this.
“whatever, the answers to the above issues, the fact remains that you and me and razib (i.e. random visitors) will still not get a right to practice our free speech here under the First Amendment irrespective of how the above issues are decided.”
i agree.
i must not in the mood woking today, i guess.
the fact remains that you and me and razib (i.e. random visitors)
ergo, all should know that the lack of deletion of my comments are an implicit imprimatur of approval.
howz that for an argument? wink
Here’s a book full of Mohammed cartoons:
Mohammed’s Believe It or Else!
thought i’d share this… there’s the real audio and the emails from listeners… for the canucks especially – very very interesting stuff… cross-country checkup Here’s a couple of contrasting callers
time stamp – 1:01:00 – Guest Imam Salman Elmanyani – muslim council of montreal – “republish cartoons… insult of prophet… government’s apology is not good enough… want government to stand up… we’re against hate speech not against free speech… unacceptable… canadians have different ways of dealing with us … canadians are good people … community appreciated that… extremists on both sides, christians, jews, muslims speak in same language… demonstration of love to prophet will come through… scholars are instructing that demonstrations be peaceful… the media is not representing this fairly… disappointing… prophet has forgiven people who have insulted him… very offensive… appreciate canadian media very responsible… “
time stamp -1:08:30 – Ghulam Mohiuddin from NS- “Imam is jihadist… cant understand him… he has to communicate… incitement coming from mosques… imams went to failed states with cartoons and incited hatred… 20,000 muslims in nova scotia, economic immigrants… who are the 1.6 billion muslims who were outraged… they cant read newspapers… 80% of 1.6 billion are not educated. 50% of them cant read or write… effort is led by failed states, … pakistan… afghanistan… syria…lebanon… when i came here 40 years ago,… 30-35 years ago went to mosques for social gatherings… in early 80’s all the jihadis with long beards and turbans came in … funds came from saudi arabia.. their program is to take over mosques… started imposing dress code, gender segregation, … took over mosque … plan of saudi arabia to take over control of mosques… this is how jihad nexus works… muslim men go for social gathering or inspiration for mosque… ”
you know … at the end of the day I am actually glad for all this brouhaha… people are talking.
i like mr bean because he is very funny
ok i love my darling and i kiss him