Support Congress in Opposing Blasphemy Laws Worldwide

[TechBear_Seattle]

I got this letter from the American Humanist Association in my email today, and wanted to pass it on.

Support Congress in Opposing Blasphemy Laws Worldwide!

An increasing number of foreign governments, including some in Europe, are regarding criticism of, or poking fun at, religion as a form of "defamation." Moreover, several United Nations resolutions that are now under consideration would have a chilling effect on free speech by criminalizing such activity.

To counter this trend, a new bill was recently introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives that, if passed, would stand up for the First Amendment principles of free speech, free press, and religious liberty. HR 6146, introduced in May by Representative Steve Cohen, would amend the Federal Judicial Code to forbid U.S. courts from recognizing or enforcing any foreign court judgment of defamation unless the ruling is consistent with the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. In other words, if this recent bill becomes law, our courts will be empowered to refuse to recognize any foreign judgments that punish blasphemy.

We humanists need to support this important move within Congress! Governments have no business punishing thoughts, ideas, or free expression. The freedoms to form one's own conclusions about religion and to then speak openly about them are among our most long-standing and cherished legal traditions. But many countries around the world don't share our concepts of free speech, free press, and religious liberty. So they have passed what are essentially blasphemy laws. This means that, in many parts of the world, it could be considered illegal to offend someone by saying that the Hindu gods are ancient folklore, Moses never lived, Jesus didn't die for humanity's sins, or Mohamed wasn't a prophet. HR 6146 would protect Americans who might be charged with breaking such laws.

Take a stand today for free expressions and religious liberty. Send a letter to your representatives in Congress and ask them to become cosponsors of HR 6146. Let's help the United States share with the world the enlightened principle that blasphemy laws are unacceptable infringements on human rights!

[Taverner]

1. K&R

[defendandprotect]

2. Thank you --- !!! Nor could you say . . ..

Jesus was essentially a Commie ---

and the god of the old testament was a vicious prick ---

That's part Al Franken and part George Carlin . . . !!!

[TechBear_Seattle]

5. Those are already protected under the First Amendment (Full text of bill here)

This will only affect recognition of foreign charges of defamation.

The bill itself is very short. The entire text reads:

A BILL

To amend title 28, United States Code, to prohibit recognition and enforcement of foreign defamation judgments.


Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. FINDINGS; PURPOSE.

(a) Findings- Congress finds the following:

(1) The first amendment of the Constitution of the United States prohibits the abridgment of freedom of speech.

(2) Freedom of speech is fundamental to the values of American democracy.

(3) In light of the constitutional protection our Nation affords to freedom of speech, the Supreme Court has modified the elements of the common law tort of defamation to provide more protection for defendants than would be available at common law, including providing special protections for political speech.

(4) The courts of other countries, including those that otherwise share our Nation's common law and due process traditions, are not constrained by the first amendment and thus may provide less protection to defamation defendants than our Constitution requires.

(5) While our Nation's courts will generally enforce foreign judgments as a matter of comity, comity does not require that courts enforce foreign judgments that are repugnant to our Nation's fundamental constitutional values, in particular its strong protection of the right to freedom of speech.

(6) Our Nation's courts should only enforce foreign judgments as a matter of comity when such foreign judgments are consistent with the right to freedom of speech.

(b) Purpose- The purpose of this Act is to protect the right to freedom of speech under the first amendment to the Constitution of the United States from the potentially weakening effects of foreign judgments concerning defamation.

SEC. 2. RECOGNITION OF FOREIGN DEFAMATION JUDGMENTS.

(a) In General- Part VI of title 28, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:

`CHAPTER 181--FOREIGN JUDGMENTS

`SEC. 4101 RECOGNITION OF FOREIGN DEFAMATION JUDGMENTS.

`(a) First Amendment Considerations- Notwithstanding any other provision of Federal or State law, a domestic court shall not recognize or enforce a foreign judgment concerning defamation unless the domestic court determines that the foreign judgment is consistent with the first amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

`(b) Definitions- For purposes of this section:

`(1) COURT- The term `court' means a court, administrative body, or other tribunal.

`(2) DEFAMATION- The term `defamation' means libel, slander, or any other cause of action primarily based on a published communication.

`(3) DOMESTIC COURT- The term `domestic court' means a State court or a Federal court.

`(4) FOREIGN COURT- The term `foreign court' means a court of a foreign country.

`(5) FOREIGN JUDGMENT- The term `foreign judgment' means a final judgment rendered by a foreign court.'.

(b) Clerical Amendment- The table of chapters for part VI of title 28, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:
4101'.

Text

As you see, it makes no specific mention of blasphemy; it would simply require that, for a US court to recognize a charge of defamation, the law under which that charge was levied must be consistent with the First Amendment. Because the First Amendment already allows you to say, "Muhammad was a pedophile and Allah sucks rocks," a charge of blasphemy or defamation of the Prophet levied by a foreign country could not be recognized by the US.

[Hydra]

3. "Blasphemy"

I wonder how many good ideas wound up dead because of this concept.

Happy to be the 5th rec.

[msongs]

4. isnt religion wonderful? i your values cant win, just murder the opposition nt

[varkam]

6. Maybe this is a stupid question...

but since when dove US courts been compelled to recognize foreign law?

[TechBear_Seattle]

10. One word: Extradition

A Christian missionary goes to Iran or Saudi Arabia. It is illegal to preach anything other than Islam in these countries. The missionary is arrested, charged with "defamation" of Islam, and found guilty. The missionary then manages to flee the country and make his way to the United States. Suppose Iran or Saudi Arabia demanded that he be detained and returned for punishment. Under existing treaties and laws, the courts are obligated to comply: the missionary broke the law. If this law gets passed, the courts would be prohibited from complying, as his crime was no crime under the First Amendment.

The down side is that this would apply to hate speech as well. For example, a Talibangelical preacher in Toronto gives a firey sermon that calls for the murder of homosexuals and pagans. Under Canadian law, the preacher could be arrested, tried and convicted for incitement to commit hate crimes or something along those lines. If the preacher were tried and convicted, then fled to the US, the courts would again be prohibited from handing him over to Canadian authorities as a fugitive, because he committed no crime in light of our First Amendment.

[struggle4progress]

13. I suspect that if you try to cite actual cases, it will become clear that you're blowing smoke

[struggle4progress]

7. "To prohibit recognition and enforcement of foreign defamation judgments"

http://www.opencongress.org/bill/110-h6146/text

I bet this isn't about "blasphemy" but about US publishers getting sued in foreign jurisdictions under foreign libel laws. If that's the case, one might want to consider multiple complicated policy issues before deciding what course of action is appropriate

[beam me up scottie]

9. I was wondering where you were.

Jeez, I was even a little worried. Great, now I feel like Spock.

[struggle4progress]

12. Concerned I might have jumped off the deep end? That's thoughtful -- but not to worry:

I know how to swim

[muriel_volestrangler]

11. I think you're right - not about 'blasphemy' at all, but libel and slander

I think it's probably aimed at Britain - "other countries, including those that otherwise share our Nation's common law and due process traditions, are not constrained by the first amendment and thus may provide less protection to defamation defendants than our Constitution requires".

'Blasphemy' is not defamation.

Here's Cohen's explanation of it:

On Thursday evening, Congressman Steve Cohen (TN-09) introduced legislation that would discourage the use of foreign defamation lawsuits as a weapon to silence or intimidate American journalists, authors and publishers. H.R. 6146 was designed to prohibit the phenomenon of “libel tourism,” or the exploitation of defamation laws in foreign countries that lack the broad protections of free speech guaranteed by the First Amendment in the United States.


“Libel tourism threatens to undermine the principles of free speech because foreign courts often don’t place as difficult a burden on plaintiffs in libel cases,” said Congressman Cohen. “My bill would prohibit domestic courts from recognizing or enforcing foreign defamation judgments unless the domestic court finds that the foreign judgment comports with our First Amendment.”

The Association of American Publishers (AAP) has applauded Congressman Cohen’s legislation, and the bill has already received bipartisan support in the House Judiciary Committee (which has jurisdiction over the bill). The bipartisan legislation was cosponsored by House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers (MI-14), Judiciary Committee members Congressmen Berman (CA-28), Coble (NC-06), Gutierrez (IL-04), Issa (CA-49), Jackson-Lee (TX-18), Johnson (GA-04), Lofgren (CA-16), Nadler (NY-08) and Wexler (FL-19), as well as Congressmen Udall (CO-02) and Yarmuth (KY-03).

The issue of libel tourism has gotten a good deal of attention as a result of the case of Ehrenfeld v. bin Mahfouz, which involved a U.S. author who was sued for libel in England by a Saudi billionaire. The author, Rachel Ehrenfeld, was unsuccessful in her effort to have an English default judgment against her declared unenforceable in the U.S. This prompted the New York State Legislature to enact legislation – the first of its kind in the U.S. – prohibiting enforcement of a foreign libel judgment unless a court in New York determines that it satisfies the free speech and press protections guaranteed by the U.S. and the New York State constitutions. Nonetheless, the Governor of New York noted when signing that bill into law that ultimately, Congress needed to address this issue at the national level.

AAP President & CEO Pat Schroeder said, “We’re encouraged and gratified that Congress is focusing attention on the serious problem of libel tourism. We’ve supported Rachel Ehrenfeld in her court battles and lobbied hard for passage of the New York ‘Libel Terrorism Protection Act.’ Now we’d like to see the fight taken to another level with enactment of federal legislation.”

http://cohen.house.gov/index.php?option=content&task=view&id=542

[Speck Tater]

8. Vote to protect the Flying Spaghetti Monster from blasphemers! NT