In USAToday Monday, Jonathan Turley explained the danger of "blasphemy laws" that are gaining favor in many parts of the world. In particular, he objects to U.S. support of a United Nations resolution passed earlier this month, which, he argues, carves out exceptions for "negative religious stereotyping" in its free speech support and sets the stage for broader international momentum toward laws protecting religion at the expense of expressive freedom. He's exactly right about one thing for sure: religious freedom and free speech need each other, and are both threatened when either is not robustly defended.
Thinly disguised blasphemy laws are often defended as necessary to protect the ideals of tolerance and pluralism. They ignore the fact that the laws achieve tolerance through the ultimate act of intolerance: criminalizing the ability of some individuals to denounce sacred or sensitive values. We do not need free speech to protect popular thoughts or popular people. It is designed to protect those who challenge the majority and its institutions. Criticism of religion is the very measure of the guarantee of free speech — the literal sacred institution of society.
The paragraph in question in the UN statement (you can read the entire resolution (pdf) here) reads:
…expresses its concern that incidents of racial and religious intolerance, discrimination and related violence, as well as of negative racial and religious stereotyping continue to rise around the world, and condemns, in this context, any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence, and urges States to take effective measures, consistent with their obligations under international human rights law, to address and combat such incidents.
Howard Friedman's description of the controversy suggests the issue may be more complex than Turley allows, and that it could mark either a win or a loss for free speech, depending on how key passages are interpreted.
The resolution omits the controversial term "defamation of religion," which the Organization of the Islamic Conference had pushed through in resolutions adopted in previous years. Instead it included a paragraph that each side has chosen to interpret differently.
However it is that states decide to "take effective measures" to combat incidents of discrimination, hostility or violence, they should be sure to protect individual liberties first and foremost.
