Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News

Drudge Retort

User Info

thomewood

Subscribe to thomewood's blog Subscribe

Menu

Special Features

Comments

www.csmonitor.com
I missed two.

As an American that has made his home in a different country (Germany) it sometimes comes up talking to friends here and in the US what things I like more living in Europe and what things I still think are better in the US and free speech often comes up comparing the UK and Germany both which have blasphemy laws to the US which such laws are forbidden by the Constitution. The list of things I like more living here are quality of life and the Government spending my tax dollars on it's citizens instead most of the pie going to the Military and aid to countries that bite the hand of the US while taking the aid.

From Wikipedia
United States of America
Main article: Blasphemy law in the United States of America
A prosecution for blasphemy in the United States would fail as a violation of the U.S. Constitution. The First Amendment to the United States Constitution provides:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press . . . ."
Because of the First Amendment's protection of free speech and religious exercise from federal interference, and the Supreme Court's extension of those protections against state regulation, the United States and its constituent state governments may not prosecute blasphemous speech or religious insults and may not allow civil actions on those grounds. In Joseph Burstyn, Inc. v. Wilson, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that New York could not enforce a censorship law against filmmakers whose films contained "sacrilegious" content. The opinion of the Court, by Justice Clark, stated that:

"From the standpoint of freedom of speech and the press, it is enough to point out that the state has no legitimate interest in protecting any or all religions from views distasteful to them which is sufficient to justify prior restraints upon the expression of those views. 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."[104]
It should be noted, however, that the United States and some individual state jurisdictions provide for stronger criminal penalties for crimes when committed against a person because of that person's religious affiliation. For instance, Section 3A1.1 of the 2009 United States Sentencing Guidelines states that: "If the finder of fact at trial or, in the case of a plea of guilty or nolo contendere, the court at sentencing determines beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant intentionally selected any victim or any property as the object of the offense of conviction because of the actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, ethnicity, gender, disability, or sexual orientation of any person," the sentencing court is required to increase the standard sentencing range.[105]

Drudge Retort
 

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2015 World Readable