Friday, July 18, 2008

No importation of blasphemy judgments

Rep. Steve Cohen (D-Tenn.) has introduced a bill that would prohibit federal courts from enforcing foreign judgments for defamation unless they are consistent with the First Amendment of the Constitution. The bill is aimed at UN supported law in other nations that permit actions against individuals for published remarks deemed to be hostile or offensive to or defamatory of a religion or religious group, i.e., for "offensive" or "hostile" remarks about a religion.

For example, Mark Steyn has been charged with, essentially, blasphemy in Canada. He beat the rap before the Canadian Human Rights Commission, but a decision is still pending before the British Columbia Human Rights Commission. Imagine he loses and the judgment involves some type of monetary award to the complainant.

Under the proposed statute, the successful would not be able to petition the United States District Court for New Hampshire (where Steyn lives) and seek to garnish his earnings or attach his property.

The Beckett Fund has called upon John McCain and Barack Obama to support the bill. It's scope is somewhat broader than religious defamation, but I have no problem with that.

I don't recognize the names of all the sponsors of the bill, but those I do are all Democrats. Republicans ought to support this as well.

H/T: Religion Clause Blog

5 comments:

illusory tenant said...

Mark Steyn has been charged with, essentially, blasphemy in Canada.

Mark Steyn hasn't been "charged" with anything. The complaints were filed against a magazine, Maclean's.

Furthermore the complaint filed in British Columbia alleges violation of that province's Human Rights Code Section 7, which deals with exposure of persons or groups to hatred or contempt.

Was that section inspired by concerns with "blasphemy"? You seem to be suggesting that it is, but it's not clear where you're getting that from. Legislative history?

There is an ancient provision in Canada's Criminal Code dealing with "blasphemous libel," but as far as I'm aware, nobody's invoked it during the Maclean's controversy.

Rick Esenberg said...

Perhaps Steyn is not named individually although I have certainly seen it reported that way. I said it was "essentially" blasphemy because the complainant has argued that the problem with Steyn's piece is its portrayal of Islam.

But let's not quibble. Do you think that the imposition of liability for what Steyn wrote is consistent with the First Amendment? (If you do, Peter Rofes has some 'splaining to do.) Do you think it ought to be?

Or are you just trying to help out the old home side?

illusory tenant said...

The problem, they say, is with Steyn's portrayal of Islam, yes, but I don't think they're saying he's blaspheming its holy objects.

They're claiming it's inciting the Canucks to hatred toward Muslims in violation of that unwieldy Human Rights Code.

I'm with Maclean's all the way, for what it's worth, as are, I'm certain, most Canadians.

I expect that not only will the B.C. complaint get tossed but that these various human rights provisions will get revamped legislatively.

And no, I don't think any of this business is consistent with the First Amendment.

Terrence Berres said...

Mr. Steyn described part of his experience this way.

"Among the other 'flagrantly Islamophobic' articles the Canadian Islamic Congress took to the human rights commissions is my review of a situation comedy--the taxpayer funded Canadian-Muslim sitcom Little Mosque on the Prairie. I reviewed it for Maclean's magazine, and it wasn't exactly a non-stop laugh-riot, which would be an unexceptional observation, especially with regard to taxpayer-funded CBC sitcoms. But the Canadian Islamic Congress is alleging that finding Muslims insufficiently funny is Islamophobic."

Anonymous said...

Perhaps Steyn is not named individually although I have certainly seen it reported that way.

And if before writing your post isn't the right time to actually investigate your claims for accuracy, how about after they're specifically called into question?

But no - better to leave this as a "perhaps" based on some half-remembered reports, than to use Google for 60 seconds, find out you were wrong, and actually admit and retract the error.

I said it was "essentially" blasphemy because the complainant has argued that the problem with Steyn's piece is its portrayal of Islam.

Yet we just saw that you have been working from unreliable reports, and that not even direct challenges to your claims can induce you to inform yourself. Isn't this just digging yourself deeper? Why defend your error as a deliberate simplification, as if you understood the details of the complaint and were helpfully streamlining them for your readers, when you clearly do not?

In fact the original complaint was that Macleans, not Steyn, showed bias not in publishing his essay, which the complainants explicitly said he has the right to publish. The complaint was that Macleans refused to air countervailing opinions, even if written by a mutually agreed writer. This remains the primary remedy sought.

Now, this complaint may be, or be amenable to, a strong case or it may not. (A full presentation might make reference to the very substantial taxpayer subsidies that Macleans has accepted over many years, and the putative public interest in its conduct that this engenders.) But either way, what are gloriously false -- too ridiculous to be rescued with post hoc claims of approximate truth -- are the following:

- Mark Steyn was charged.
- The charge was blasphemy -- "essentially" or otherwise.
- The objective is the imposition of liability for what Steyn wrote simpliciter.

It would be great if you at least stopped uncritically recycling these falsehoods; better yet if you acknowledged you'd done so; best case, you start correcting others in the right-blogosphere when you see them taking the same lazy and inaccurate approach.