Posted by Eugene Volokh:
Harsh Criticism of Religion Made Illegal:

   No, not by the mullahs; not by Ashcroft; rather, by the Australian
   Parliament. The Australian Racial and Religious Tolerance Act of 2001
   provides that "A person must not, on the ground of the religious
   belief or activity of another person or class of persons engage in
   conduct that incites hatred against, serious contempt for, or
   revulsion or severe ridicule of, that other person or class of
   persons."

   There's a defense for people who, among other things, are "reasonably
   and in good faith" engaging in "genuine academic, artistic, religious
   or scientific" commentary, or otherwise acting "in the public
   interest." But the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal held
   two months ago that this defense is available only to those who speak
   "reasonabl[y]" and who "honestly and conscientiously endeavour to have
   regard to and minimise the harm [the speech] . . . will . . .
   inflict," as opposed to "us[ing the freedom of speech] as a cover to
   offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate people."

   Among other things, speech that isn't "a fair representation of
   [another group's] religious beliefs" is punishable, as is speech that
   fails to "distinguish between moderate and extremist" members of a
   religion. Likewise, the tribunal seemed particularly troubled by
   speech that "mock[s] what [members of a religious group believe," or
   "repeatly invoke[s] laughter from the audience when describing
   apparent [religious] beliefs." (Naturally, the decision and the
   statute give little guidance as to what exactly you can say in order
   that your comments be found "reasonable" and "fair.") [1]The decision
   (Islamic Council of Victoria v Catch the Fire Ministries Inc) held
   some Christian speakers liable for harshly criticizing and mocking
   Islam -- among other things, saying "that the Qur'an promotes
   violence, killing and looting," "that it treats women badly," "that
   Allah is not merciful and a thief's hand is cut off for stealing," and
   more. But of course, if the law is applied evenhandedly, it would
   equally apply to atheists criticizing religious people generally
   (think "religion is the opium of the masses" but with some more
   elaboration), or at least members of a particular religion. It would
   apply to people criticizing Catholicism for its supposed oppression of
   women or historical crimes. It would apply to people mocking beliefs
   like those of Catch the Fire Ministries, or harshly criticizing the
   Falwells and the Robertsons.

   This is an awful position for a democracy to take. Religions are
   ideologies, and need to be subject to criticism like any other
   ideology -- especially when the religions are motive forces for
   important political and moral movements. Some of this criticism will
   involve mockery, laughter, and severe ridicule; and ridiculing
   religious ideologies will naturally implicitly or explicitly ridicule
   people who hold those views, especially when the speaker gives
   examples of folly that the ideology supposedly causes. Yet if you take
   religion seriously, as a set of ideas that, if true, should affect
   people's lives, you have to accept the possibility that some religious
   ideas are false and harmful, and deserve harsh criticism and not just
   bland ecumenical toleration.

   I would prefer that such criticisms be fair, polite, and measured; but
   it's impossible for the law to punish only the rude and excessive form
   without also punishing and deterring important content. [2]John Stuart
   Mill dealt with all this a century and a half ago, and his position is
   as sound today as it was then.

   In any event, this is just another reminder to be cautious about
   proposals to create a new "hate speech" exception in U.S.
   constitutional law, by replacing the supposed excessive rigidity of
   modern First Amendment law with a more balanced and nuanced approach.
   Seems to me that our rigidity on this score is far superior to
   Euro-Canado-Australian flexibility.

References

   1. 
http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/disp.pl/au/cases/vic/VCAT/2004/2510.html?query=%22religious+vilification%22
   2. http://www.bartleby.com/130/2.html

_______________________________________________
Volokh mailing list
[email protected]
http://highsorcery.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/volokh

Reply via email to