The Volokh Conspiracy

TribLive (Pittsurgh) reports:

Carnegie Mellon University police on Friday filed charges of indecent exposure against two art students accused of public nudity during a campus parade sponsored by the College of Fine Arts.

Police identified the female student accused of parodying the pope as she paraded nude from the waist down as Katherine B. O’Connor, 19 ..., a sophomore art major ....

University President Jared Cohon, who has publicly apologized for the April 18 papal parody, announced the charges in an email on Friday. He said the university will not discipline the students.

Police charged Robb S. Godshaw, 22, of Wilmette, Ill., accusing him of dressing as an astronaut and disrobing atop a float during the parade. Photographs on Godshaw’s Facebook page show him disrobing and riding the float naked, police said in court documents....

The criminal charges capped a university review triggered by an inquiry from Bishop David Zubik of the Pittsburgh Catholic Diocese. Zubik asked the university to take a stand on the papal parody, which he found offensive....

“As I have said over these last few weeks, this is an opportunity for all of us to be reminded that freedom of speech and freedom of expression do not constitute a freedom to dismiss or disrespect the beauty of anyone’s race, the sacredness of anyone’s religious belief or the uniqueness of anyone’s nationality,” Zubik said.

“The students took part in a campus art event and, in the case of the student who portrayed herself as the Pope, made an artistic statement which proved to be controversial,” Cohon said.

“While I recognize that many found the students’ activities deeply offensive, the university upholds their right to create works of art and express their ideas. But, public nudity is a violation of the law and subject to appropriate action.”

Some thoughts:

1. Public nudity is indeed illegal in Pennsylvania, and if the facts show that the defendants’ genitalia were indeed visible, that’s a crime. Nor do I think that there is a defense for public nudity — or public sex — when engaged in for artistic or political purposes, though I recognize that there are interesting questions about how constitutional doctrine has developed in this area (with publicly visible displays of moving pictures of nudity, for instance, being generally protected by the First Amendment, Erznoznik v. City of Jacksonville (1975), but live nudity being unprotected).

And I doubt that this is a case of selective prosecution, in which people whose expression is blasphemous are punished for violating a law that others routinely violate with impunity: My sense is that people who go around naked in public in Pittsburgh are going to be prosecuted regardless of their message. So I doubt there is a First Amendment problem here, though there might have been if this indeed involved a law that is otherwise unenforced.

2. The Bishop’s view of free speech is, however, quite constrained. “As I have said over these last few weeks, this is an opportunity for all of us to be reminded that freedom of speech and freedom of expression do not constitute a freedom to dismiss or disrespect the beauty of anyone’s race, the sacredness of anyone’s religious belief or the uniqueness of anyone’s nationality.” Religious beliefs are beliefs, and others may quite plausibly not have respect for what the beliefs say, or how they were arrived at; and of course they may doubt that those beliefs are “sacred.”

It is often counterproductive, juvenile, and ill-mannered to express disrespect for others’ religious beliefs in certain ways, but under First Amendment law — which I think is exactly right on this score — dismissing and disrespecting the sacredness of others’ religious beliefs is very much a part of one’s freedom of speech and religious freedom. (Nor should there be any exception from the First Amendment for speech that dismisses “the beauty” of races or “the uniqueness” of nationalities.)

3. The CMU President, Dr. Cohon, issued a statement, saying, in relevant part:

Let me begin by quoting the university’s freedom of expression policy ... [:]“Carnegie Mellon University values the freedoms of speech, thought, expression and assembly — in themselves and as part of our core educational and intellectual mission. The university must be a place where all ideas may be expressed freely and where no alternative is withheld from consideration. The only limits on these freedoms are those dictated by law and those necessary to protect the rights of other members of the university community and to ensure the normal functioning of the university.”

Our policy makes it clear that Carnegie Mellon is committed to the rights of its students to express controversial views, while recognizing some key restrictions on that expression — including those dictated by law.... The students took part in a campus art event and, in the case of the student who portrayed herself as the Pope, made an artistic statement which proved to be controversial. While I recognize that many found the students’ activities deeply offensive, the university upholds their right to create works of art and express their ideas. But, public nudity is a violation of the law and subject to appropriate action....

There are competing values at issue here: Carnegie Mellon aims to be a place where ideas can be expressed and debated openly, but also where people of all backgrounds, faiths, and beliefs feel welcomed and supported. Unavoidably, the expression of some views will offend some people; that is the price of this freedom. However, if in the expression of these views, people in our community come to feel that the campus is intolerant, then the other of our cherished values is challenged. In such a situation, the institution may find it necessary to reassure those offended of its commitment to tolerance and inclusion. In doing so, I do not believe that the institution is compromising freedom of expression. Similarly, it is reasonable to expect individuals to consider the impact on others in expressing their views and how they choose to express them. This is responsibility, not censorship, and something that our students, especially, should learn while they are members of our community.

It is our practice in controversial situations such as this one to provide opportunities for discussion, where all sides have a chance to express their views. This has already begun on the campus. Members of our community are asking themselves the difficult questions about what happened here, and embracing their responsibility to create a context in which events like these can continue to be held in a manner which is consistent with the full range of our values. These values include, certainly, freedom of expression, but also the cultivation of an inclusive, mutually respectful environment, and respect for the law....

On balance, this seems quite reasonable, if taken literally — as I think the University has — to mean that the response for speech that makes groups reasonably feel offended (but doesn’t violate the law) might include public statements of support for the targeted groups, but would not include suppression of the speech. And I also agree teaching students, without punishing the speech, “to consider the impact on others in expressing their views and how they choose to express them,” is a pretty reasonable goal on the university’s part, especially since the habit of considering such things will serve the students in good stead in their future lives.

The Jerusalem Post reports (thanks to Prof. Howard Friedman (Religion Clause) for the pointer):

In a groundbreaking ruling, the Jerusalem District Court upheld an earlier decision of the magistrate’s court that women who wear prayer shawls (“tallitot” in Hebrew) at the Western Wall Plaza are not contravening “local custom” or causing a public disturbance, and therefore should not be arrested.

The issue of equal prayer rights at the site has risen to the forefront of public debate in recent months due to the frequent arrests of women participating in the prayer services that the Women of the Wall activist group holds there....

The Regulations for the Protection of Holy Places to the Jews, dating from 1981, forbid performing religious ceremonies that are “not according to local custom” or that “may hurt the feelings of the worshipers” at the site, where local custom is interpreted to mean Orthodox practice.

These regulations and their interpretation, which a Supreme Court ruling upheld in 2003 and a Justice Ministry directive reiterated in 2005, have been the legal basis for the regular arrests of women who perform Jewish customs at the Western Wall that are usually practiced only by men in Orthodox Judaism....

[But] Judge Moshe Sobell ... ruled that the definition of “local custom” did not automatically mean Orthodox practice... In reference to the charges of causing a public disturbance and disturbing the peace, Sobell ruled that even if the women had behaved in a way that was disruptive, they were in no way suspected of violent or verbal behavior that would either disturb the peace or endanger the public.

I take it there’ll be further litigation on this, given the apparent conflict with the earlier Supreme Court ruling. I blogged about the issue last year, so I thought I’d note this new development.

Dr. Jogchum Vrielink (coordinator of the Centre for Discrimination Law at the University of Leuven, Belgium) passes this along:

In Belgium a man was convicted for ‘racist hate speech’ because he publicly tore up a Koran, before the eyes of a group of Muslims. The case illustrates the need to protect free speech against those seeking to criminalise ‘Islamophobia’.

On 8 June 2012 a man, identified as Arne S., participated in a demonstration organised by a radical right-wing political party, Vlaams Belang (‘Flemish Interest’), opposing the construction of a mosque in the Belgian coastal city of Ostend. In the aftermath of the demonstration S. tore up a Koran in the presence of a small group of Muslims, with whom he had exchanged words. The public prosecutor indicted S. for incitement to hatred, discrimination and violence on the basis of race and ethnic origin.

The defendant’s attorney called for an acquittal, arguing that no infraction on the anti-racism legislation had occurred. The criminal court in Bruges convicted the man, however, on 11 March 2013. Due in part to the unfavourable criminal history of the defendant, the sentence was relatively severe, consisting of an effective prison sentence of four months and a fine of 600 euros. The court held that the facts were serious and testified to “a blatant lack of tolerance and a highly questionable attitude”.

Terrorist!

The ruling fits within a wider development in the legal world in general, and in Belgium in particular, of increased sensitivity to what is often referred to as ‘Islamophobia’. Another notable example of this trend, within Belgian case law, was the conviction, a few years ago, of an individual who, while drunk, had shouted “Terrorist!” at a sun-tanned, but Caucasian (!), snack bar owner, adding that the latter should “return to his own country”. The criminal court in Ypres regarded this too as racist incitement to hatred. The Centre for Equal Opportunities – a government institution responsible for enforcing the federal Belgian discrimination and hate speech legislation – welcomed this conviction at the time. A representative was quoted saying that the defendant “had targeted a man whom he thought was of foreign descent”, and that – as such – he had had “the intention to affect this person”. “Several people have been convicted for similar statements, but it remains a strong signal by the court”, the Centre’s representative concluded.

On the political level too some are attempting to increase the legal sensitivity for ‘Islamophobia’. Senators Fauzaya Talhaoui and Bert Anciaux, for instance, introduced a draft resolution on 21 February 2013, aimed at the ‘the fight against Islamophobia’. Following the definition offered by the Runnymede Trust, the Senators understand ‘Islamophobia’ to entail the ‘strong presence’ of any of eight elements, including: ‘Islam as monolithic and static’; ‘Islam as inferior to the West and as barbaric, irrational and sexist’; and ‘Islam as violent, providing support to terrorism, and actively involved in a clash of civilisations’. Such ‘Islamophobic’ ideas, Talhaoui and Anciaux contend, “incite to discrimination and racism, and require unequivocal condemnation and judicial prosecution”. They argue that the police and that the office of the public prosecutor should be instructed to treat the issue as an absolute priority.

Continue reading ‘“Racist Hate Speech” Conviction in Belgium for Tearing up Koran in Front of a Group of Muslims’ »

So reports the BBC; the sentence is 10 months’ suspended, so that he will not go to jail on this occasion, but he “would be subject to the prison time should he commit a similar crime within five years,” according to BusinessWeek.com.

The case against him was based on about half a dozen postings on Twitter mentioned in the indictment, including one mentioning a Turkish liquor and whiskey: “What if there is raki in paradise but not in hell, while there is Chivas Regal in hell and not in paradise? What will happen then? This is the most important question!”

Say’s comments in April 2012 drew criticism from some in predominantly Muslim Turkey, as alcohol is banned by Islam. Say said he was only criticizing the exploitation of religion for profit.

Another tweet cited in the indictment was a retweet saying, “I am not sure if you have also realised it, but if there’s a louse, a non-entity, a lowlife, a thief or a fool, it’s always an Allah-ist.” The Guardian (UK) adds:

In one message he retweeted a verse from a poem by Omar Khayyám in which the 11th-century Persian poet attacks pious hypocrisy: “You say rivers of wine flow in heaven, is heaven a tavern to you? You say two huris [companions] await each believer there, is heaven a brothel to you?” In other tweets, he made fun of a muezzin (a caller to prayer) and certain religious practices.

Fazil Say is apparently quite prominent, and has even “served as a cultural ambassador for the EU.” Thanks to Ipek Bozkurt for the pointer.

Al Jazeera reports:

Hundreds of thousands of people have held protests in Bangladesh to demand that the government introduce an anti-blasphemy law that would include the death penalty for bloggers who insult Islam....

Supporters of Hefazat-e-Islam, an Islamist group which draws support from tens of thousands of religious seminaries [and that has the backing of country's largest party, Jamaat-e-Islami], converged on Dhaka’s main commercial hub to protest against what they said were blasphemous writings by atheist bloggers, shouting “God is great — hang the atheist bloggers”.

“I’ve come here to fight for Islam. We won’t allow any bloggers to blaspheme our religion and our beloved Prophet Mohammed,” said Shahidul Islam, an imam at a mosque outside Dhaka ....

The bloggers, who deny they are atheists, have sought capital punishment for those found guilty of war crimes during the nation’s liberation war [including the leaders of Jamaat-e-Islami] ....

A well-known protester and blogger, Ahmed Rajib Haider, was killed reportedly by Jamaat supporters....

Zafar Sobhan, editor of the Dhaka Tribune, ... said that ... it was unlikely that a blasphemy law would be introduced ... [and] that the march was less about a blasphemy law but was more of a reaction to calls for the death penalty for political party leaders being tried for war crimes....

The government has blocked about a dozen websites and blogs to stem the unrest. It has also set up a panel, which includes intelligence chiefs, to monitor blasphemy on social media.

Under the country’s cyber laws, a blogger or Internet writer can face up to ten years in jail for defaming a religion.

Thanks to Prof. Howard Friedman (Religion Clause) for the pointer.

CNN reports:

[Pakistani Christian] demonstrators denounced the burning of more than 100 homes of Christians on Saturday — a spree spurred by allegations that a Christian man made remarks against the Muslim prophet Mohammed.

Some of the hundreds of protesters Sunday threw stones at police, saying the government failed to adequately protect Christians, Lahore senior police official Rai Tahir said.

Tahir said video footage of the fires helped lead to the arrests of more than 150 attackers. He said charges of terrorism have been filed against the suspects.

The violence that tore through Lahore’s Badami Bagh community Saturday followed the arrest of Sawan Masih, a Christian in his 20s accused of blasphemy....

If convicted, Masih faces the death penalty.... Masih [denied the charges, saying he and his two accusers] got into an argument while drinking and that the other two men threatened to publicly accuse him of blasphemy, according to [a senior police official]....

There have been about 1,400 blasphemy cases since the laws were first enacted in 1986, according to U.S.-based Human Rights Watch. There are more than 15 cases of people on death row for blasphemy in Pakistan, and more than 50 people have been killed while facing trial for the charge, according to the organization....

President Asif Ali Zardari issued a statement Saturday on the most recent “unfortunate incident.” He noted that the country’s constitution protects the rights of all Pakistanis, and that “such acts of vandalism against minorities tarnish the image of the country.”

Thanks to Prof. Howard Friedman (Religion Clause) for the pointer.

AhramOnline reports:

Egypt’s administrative court on Saturday ordered the ban of YouTube in the country for a month for not removing the controversial anti-Islam film, The Innocence of Islam.

The court’s verdict also applies to any website that aided in the sharing of the 13-minute film....

The AP reports much the same, though adds that, “the ruling can be appealed and, based on precedent, may not be enforced.” I’m not quite sure what the latter part means — is it that Egyptian precedent makes this ruling legally unenforceable, or is it that in the past similar rulings have been ignored? — and the AP story does not elaborate.

Thanks to Prof. Howard Friedman (Religion Clause) for the pointer.

I blogged about this Thursday, under the heading Indian State Government Temporarily Blocks Release of Spy Thriller, Citing Fear of Riots by Muslims. I thought I’d note two follow-ups: First, director Kamal Haasan has “agreed to seven demands of Muslim leaders, mostly muting of the audio of portions objected to by them,” and it now looks like the movie can indeed be released in Tamil Nadu (the state that had blocked it) — and, presumably, will not face potential violent reprisals.

Second, I’ve been trying to figure out just what what supposedly so offensive to some Muslims that it led the Tamil Nadu government to ban it, claiming fears of rioting. I couldn’t find an objective analysis, but I did see a critical opinion column in an Indian political magazine, Tehelka — notwithstanding its likely biases, I thought I’d excerpt it, though I’d be glad to replace or supplement the excerpt from a more objective source, if readers can pass it along. The column begins by suggesting that there were various behind-the-scenes political consideration behind the Tamil Nadu move, and then briefly summarizes the objections:

Those who have watched the film (including this writer) in states other than Tamil Nadu, have found nothing in the film that should offend the sensibilities of Indian Muslims. Vishwaroopam has been running to packed houses in Andhra Pradesh and Kerala, both states with a significant Muslim population, and there has been no breakdown of law and order....

Vishwaroopam is the story of a Muslim RAW agent, who was once a covert operative in the al Qaeda and later saves New York City from a possible terror attack. The story is quite clear that the villainous Muslims are those who are in the al Qaeda, while the Indian Muslim (played by Kamal) is the hero of the film. The ­entire film is set in Afghanistan and New York.

Muslim groups, however, feel that the al Qaeda terrorists shown reading the Holy Quran would make people at large believe that all Muslims are terrorists. Another objection is to the name ‘Umar’, which the top terrorist (played by actor Rahul Bose) goes by. Muslim organisations say Umar bin-al-Khattab is the name of the second Khalifa in Islam, a revered figure, and the terrorist’s name should be changed. But then the Taliban head is Mullah Omar and no one asked him to change his name....

A PIL [Public Interest Litigation, I think -EV] has also been admitted in the Andhra Pradesh High Court against Vishwaroopam and one of the petitioners, Amjedullah Khan of a political party called Majlis Bachao Tehreek in Hyderabad, says, “It is a calculated move by the fascist ­Hindutva forces through their agents like Kamal Haasan to influence innocent non-Muslims and mislead them about Islam. It is an age-old strategy of anti-Muslim forces to portray Islam in a bad light by ­indulging in blasphemy.”

So reports the Bangkok Post:

The 10-year prison sentence handed down to Voice of Taksin editor Somyot Prueksakasemsuk for lese majeste crimes has prompted criticism from human rights groups worldwide....

[Somyot] was [convicted] of ... publishing two articles in 2010 that were deemed insulting to the royal family....

The articles were written by former PM’s Office Minister Jakrapob Penkair under the pseudonym of Jit Polachan and were published in the February and March 2010 editions of the Voice of Taksin magazine.

The four-judge panel said readers would easily understand the articles referred to the King.

The information contained in the article, however, was incorrect and libellous and it was Mr Somyot’s duty to vet it, the court said.

I can’t tell from the story (or from a Reuters story I read on the subject) just what the alleged errors were, and in particular whether they were serious factual errors — the sort of thing that might be treated as criminal libel in some U.S. states even today — or just opinions that the court found incorrect. In any case, it appears from both the Bangkok Post story and the Thai story that the essence of the crime was the insult to the king, not just the alleged errors.

Pakistan Today reports:

The Supreme Court (SC) admitted a petition for hearing against Pakistani ambassador to US Sherry Rehman over allegedly committing blasphemy, a local TV channel reported.

A two-member bench of the SC comprising Justice Anwar Zaheer jamali and Justice Ejaz Afzal directed CCPO Multan [a police official] to take action according to the law.

The petition was submitted by Faheem Akhtar Gill alleging Rehman of committing blasphemy while speaking on a news channel two years ago.

Dawn.com (Pakistan) has a similar story. NBC News adds:

The allegations against Rehman, which revolve around comments she made on Pakistani television in 2010, are being brought by Muhammad Faheem Ahkter Gill, a 31-year-old businessman who owns a marble business in the city of Multan.

Gill was watching the television interview with Rehman with two friends. He said he felt her comments were derogatory to the Prophet Muhammad and, being a Muslim, it was his responsibility to do something about it.

“I had been striving to get a blasphemy case registered against her since 2010, but in vain. Today the supreme court has ordered (the police) to register a case against her,” he said.

How far this case is going, and what is the significance of the court order to investigate, I can’t say. Thanks to Paul Milligan for the pointer.

The International Business Times reports (see also Gulf News and Radio Free Europe / Radio Liberty):

Novelist Turki al-Hamad, 58, one of Saudi Arabia’s more unapologetic and outspoken liberal voices, is now in custody for a series of posts he published on his Twitter last weekend comparing fundamentalist Islamist ideology and its strict social controls to Nazism and suggesting that political Islamists like those allied with Saudi Arabia’s royal family have taken their adulation of Prophet Muhammad too far....

The Twitter post that most riled the kingdom’s formidable conservative religious establishment and Ministry of Information was this one, written in Arabic: “Our Prophet had come to rectify the faith of Abraham, and now is a time when we need someone to rectify the faith of Muhammad.”

That is a shocking statement to those who believe the Prophet received Allah’s perfect and final revelation.

By suggesting the Saudi religious authorities are guilty of the very thing they believe they are defending against, and that this needs to be “rectified,” Hamad’s criticism was viewed as an assault on Islam itself and a direct challenge to state defenders of the faith....

The International Business Times article also reports that “Raif Badawi, a 30-year-old website editor from the port city of Jeddah, [is also] facing apostasy charges for insulting Islam through a website he ran called ‘Free Saudi Liberals’ that allowed users to openly discuss the difference between ‘popular’ and ‘politicized’ Islam.”

From Ormond Beach, Florida Code of Ordinances § 14-13(b):

It shall be unlawful for any person to import, print, exhibit, publish, sell, lease, distribute or circulate any obscene publication, or any publication describing or portraying acts of sadism, propaganda against or belittling the traditional American institutions or folkways, sympathy with crime and the criminal as against law and justice, criminals and criminal acts as being attractive ....

It’s a 1958 ordinance, and I suspect it hasn’t been much enforced recently, but even under First Amendment law as of 1958 it should have been clear (and was to some) that this law is unconstitutional.

I missed this story when it happened in April 2012:

Two young Tunisians have been sentenced to seven years in prison for posting cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad on Facebook ....

The two were sentenced to seven years in prison for a “violation of morality, and disturbing public order,” said Chokri Nefti, a Justice Ministry spokesman....

Al Arabiya reports:

An Egyptian Copt arrested on suspicion of posting online an anti-Islam film that ignited Muslim protests around the world was sentenced on Wednesday to three years in prison, a court source said

Computer science graduate Alber Saber, 27, was arrested at his Cairo home on Sept. 13 after neighbours accused him of uploading sections of the film “Innocence of Muslims” and making another movie mocking all religions....

Prosecutors accused Saber of running Facebook pages calling for atheism, insulting Islam and Christianity and questioning religious beliefs....

Thanks to Charles Chapman for the pointer.

The Telegraph (UK) reports:

Turkey’s Supreme Board of Radio and Television (RTUK), the state broadcasting regulator, levied [an approximately $30,000] fine on the cartoon’s Turkish broadcaster for airing an episode on September 20 that was found to be insulting to religion ....

In one segment of the episode, titled “Dial D for Diddly”, the religiously-devout character Ned Flanders goes on a killing rampage after being given orders by what he thinks is the voice of God. Later in the episode, the Devil demands God bring him a cup of coffee. “Yes sir,” God responds, revealing it is actually the Devil that runs the world.

RTUK stated that the episode shows “one of the characters is abusing another one’s religious beliefs to make him commit murders.

The Bible is publicly burned in one scene and God and the Devil are shown in human bodies.”

RTUK also said that God serving the Devil coffee can be considered an insult to religious beliefs.

The fine was handed to Turkish broadcaster CNBC-E for “making fun of God, encouraging the young people to exercise violence by showing the murders as God’s orders.”

Thanks to Prof. Howard Friedman (Religion Clause) for the pointer.