Skip to content

Free Speech Conviction in England

2010 April 26
tags: ,
by max

The Volokh Conspiracy notes that an English man was convicted of “causing religiously aggravated harassment, alarm or distress” for leaving a series of offensive cartoons in an airport prayer room.  Here are descriptions of some of the cartoons at issue (there were more), courtesy of the Independent:

One of the posters Taylor left at the airport depicted a smiling crucified Christ next to an advert for a brand of “no nails” glue. In another, a cartoon depicted two Muslims holding a placard demanding equality with the caption: “Not for women or gays, obviously.” A third poster showed Islamic suicide bombers at the gates of paradise being told: “Stop, stop, we’ve run out of virgins”.

Professor Volokh calls this “an appalling restriction of free speech” and asserts that he likes “our free speech rules much better.”  But I don’t have too much of a problem with this considering Europe’s unique racial dynamic, particularly with respect to its Muslim minority.  I blogged about this precise topic about a year ago (see here).

The unique context of an airport prayer room makes this a form of harassment first and free speech second.  There are certainly different contexts where the situation might be the opposite.  Professor Volokh might like our rules better but I don’t think the United States has any unique need for restrictive  laws like these.  The European racial climate is far too volatile for their governments to risk the repercussions of such conduct going unpunished.

pixelstats trackingpixel

Share This Post:
  • Print
  • Facebook
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Add to favorites
  • email
  • Yahoo! Bookmarks
  • PDF
  • Twitter

from → Law

  • msapozhn

    My layman's criterion for the issue of the First Amendment vs harassment is whether the person on the other end of free speech is given an opportunity to avoid it. You don't like what Glenn Beck or Keith Olbermann are saying – switch your TV to another channel. You don't like cartoons featuring Mohammed, Christ, or Flying Spaghetti Monster – don't buy magazines that post them. When an opinion, however, is pressed upon people for whom avoiding it is physically impossible or amounts to waiving their constitutional rights, particularly the right to privacy, free speech mutates into harassment and should be handled as such.

    To give a down-to-earth example, let's assume that you are a voter opposed to a new governmental program supported by your Rep. You can, and likely should, attend a Town Hall meeting with the said Rep and make yourself heard. You can go to any other political events, or organize your own. You can, within legal limits, donate to opposing candidates. What you cannot do, however, is to take a 5kW megaphone, walk the streets, and loudly proclaim your dislike (noise ordinance notwithstanding).

    Back to the originally mentioned event, leaving cartoons in a house of worship means pressing an opinion on people who are clearly not interested in such. I do not believe that such action amounts to hate crime or harassment, but what about a littering charge?

    PS: All that said, I believe that Europe is long overdue for a repeat of La Reconquista – especially since this time, the Islamic invaders are much less enlightened and benevolent – but it is besides the point.

  • msapozhn

    My layman's criterion for the issue of the First Amendment vs harassment is whether the person on the other end of free speech is given an opportunity to avoid it. You don't like what Glenn Beck or Keith Olbermann are saying – switch your TV to another channel. You don't like cartoons featuring Mohammed, Christ, or Flying Spaghetti Monster – don't buy magazines that post them. When an opinion, however, is pressed upon people for whom avoiding it is physically impossible or amounts to waiving their constitutional rights, particularly the right to privacy, free speech mutates into harassment and should be handled as such.

    To give a down-to-earth example, let's assume that you are a voter opposed to a new governmental program supported by your Rep. You can, and likely should, attend a Town Hall meeting with the said Rep and make yourself heard. You can go to any other political events, or organize your own. You can, within legal limits, donate to opposing candidates. What you cannot do, however, is to take a 5kW megaphone, walk the streets, and loudly proclaim your dislike (noise ordinance notwithstanding).

    Back to the originally mentioned event, leaving cartoons in a house of worship means pressing an opinion on people who are clearly not interested in such. I do not believe that such action amounts to hate crime or harassment, but what about a littering charge?

    PS: All that said, I believe that Europe is long overdue for a repeat of La Reconquista – especially since this time, the Islamic invaders are much less enlightened and benevolent – but it is besides the point.