The Enduring Controversy: My God...Your Speech!


In determining the most just way in which laws governing communication are shaped, a central focus must be identified. I claim that the position to protect individual universal civil liberty over reinforcing majority group values, even if they violate the majority opinion should be the primary focus of laws governing communication. In justification of this claim, I intend to use doctrinal precedents, textual/linguistic, and historical lines of reasoning. Through these I will discuss the U.S. Supreme Court case Burstyn v. Wilson, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and the strength of the areopagitic approach to law over the theocentric approach, respectively.

The U.S. Supreme Court case Burstyn v. Wilson in 1952, in which an Italian film entitled The Miracle was given protection by the First Amendment after being restrained by New York courts for being sacrilegious is significant for more than the fact that it reversed the 1915 decision of Mutual Film v. Ohio Industrial Commission to not protect motion pictures. It makes certain the fact that constitutionally, blasphemy is not a lawful reason to suppress ideas or opinions. This has an affect on the argument of whether religions should be protected by the government from sacrilegious criticism. By the Supreme Court ruling that blasphemy is not a reason to allow the restraint of distribution of the film The Miracle, it set a precedent that must be upheld.

As a second reason for my claim that protection of an individual universal civil liberty should be the primary focus of laws which govern communication, is the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Upon examination of article 19, the Supreme Court’s decision to protect The Miracle, and to not protect blasphemy over freedom of speech, as mentioned above, appears even more rational as it appeals to logos. Article 19 states “Everyone has a right to freedom of opinion and expression. This right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive, and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.” The freedom of opinion and expression through any media is explicitly stated, meaning that the views of those who created the film are protected and that the perceived sacrilege is no reason to take away their right as stated in article 19.

This all circles back to the idea of individual universal human rights. The entire document refers to the specific rights of each individual citizen. The rights given to each person are based upon their autonomy to think and act for themselves, not as their fellow citizens want them to. Based on an ethics of principle, in which the four principles of non-maleficence, beneficence, respect for autonomy, and justice are the focus of ethical decision making, it would make the most sense, based on an appeal to logos, to allow the individual his/her freedom and to protect that freedom when it is in danger of being violated. Even if the majority opinion is that the individual has been blasphemous or sacrilegious, it is the government’s responsibility to come to their aid. A blasphemous statement does not violate the rights of the majority that are offended by it.

Article 30 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is written as follows, “Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein.” When applying this with the idea that the blasphemy of an individual offends the majority group values, it is important to determine the difference between offending the majority and hurting the majority. As long as the act does not intend to hurt the opposition, either in a physical, mental, or reputation sense, it is still unconstitutional to take the individual’s freedom from him/her. A blasphemous or sacrilegious statement or act that offends does not necessarily destruct the rights or freedoms of the majority group. This does not mean that the majority’s rights should be taken away in lieu of protecting the individual, however, the primary focus should be on the individual, based on the doctrinal precedent of Burstyn v. Wilson, and the textual/linguistic reasoning of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

In a final effort to support my claim, an examination of the areopagitic approach to law will be beneficial. The areopagitic approach to law, based on the trilogy, The Orestes, is very similar to the current judicial system present in the United States, which follows the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. In the final installment of the trilogy, Orestes, who has killed his mother to punish her for murdering his father, is tried by a jury and is acquitted. The trial of Orestes focuses on the interpretation of the law concerning his transgression. The facts themselves are not disputed because he has already admitted he is guilty. The court does not argue about the facts, which have already been made clear, but about the law and how it is to be used in determining the punishment of the committed crime. Aeschylus, the playwright, places emphasis on the individual situation based on already established universal truths which support civil liberty. Orestes’ transgression was not judged by the offenses he committed against the murdered (his mother) nor was it judged by the opinion of those in opposition to him (the Eumenides), but was instead determined by an unaffected jury whose verdict was based on previously determined universal truths.

This is in contrast with the theocentric approach to law in which the law is unalterable; literally set in stone (by God). In this approach, the punishment is not judged on a case by case basis. It is judged by the opinion of one, who is not to be questioned and whose decision is not to be changed. The areopagitic approach is in step with the current judicial system of the United States, which follows the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and all that it entails about the freedom of speech. As seen in The Orestes, universal protection of civil liberty is the focus, as opposed to the protection of local values in turmoil with other expressed views.

Drawing from the above statements, I would protect both the photographer who created “Ecce Homo” and the cartoonists in Jyllands-Posten who satirized Mohammad. In reference to the Burstyn v. Wilson trial, in which a precedent of protecting freedom of speech over condemning blasphemous or sacrilegious expression, the protection of both speakers would need to be upheld. Justice Clark, who expressed the opinion of the court’s decision is quoted saying, “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.” Such a statement gives right to both speakers the protection of their freedom of speech. Although in both cases, turmoil was incited and, in the case of the Jyllands-Posten, people were killed, the freedom of speech entitled to both of them would require the government to give them protection.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights also protects the speakers through article 19, which is stated and discussed above. The right to express their opinion should not be taken away because they offended a majority group. Kurt Westergaard, one of the cartoonists who submitted a drawing of Muhammad, has drawn other such representations of different religious leaders such as Jesus, that has stirred discussion of appropriateness. However, the outcry for censorship concerning the drawing of Muhammad was much more dramatic. Westergaard explains that he was treating Muslims in Denmark as equals, like he treats Christians, Buddhists, Hindus, etc.: with satire. Just because the outrage resulting from the Muhammad cartoon was bigger and more intimidating (just because the majority group is bigger and louder) does not mean that he should lose his individual right to freedom of expression through media.

When applying these same principles to the burning of the Koran by pastor Terry Jones, however, the line gets blurrier. It is very easy to use the justifications listed above to ensure the protection of Jones. Yet, this may violate the protection of others stated in article 30 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Article 30 protects people from using the document as a way to destroy other’s rights of freedom. The areopagitic approach is useful in these situations, in which the individual case is examined and the ultimate good for civil liberty is decided. Seeing as the United States is on such fragile terms with the Middle East, burning the Koran could give radicals reason to plan a terrorist attack on the country. Looking at all the facts, it could come to stand that the ultimate ruling, for the betterment of the public and the protection of their right to live freely, is to take away Jones’ liberty to burn the Koran. With the imminence of a terrorist attack, U.S. citizens would lose their rights stated in article 3, which says, “Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person”.

In conclusion, my claim that the position to protect individual universal civil liberty over reinforcing majority group values, even if they violate the majority opinion should be the primary focus of laws governing communication has been proven through historical evidence and an appeal to logos. Although the responsibility of the government concerning the protection of its citizen’s freedom of speech is not black and white, following certain principles, it can stay consistent while keeping its people safe.