Ragbag Headliners

New Movie Inspires 'Courage' to Stand for Liberty The recent attacks on U.S. Embassies in Egypt, Yemen, and the U.S. consulate in Libya remind many that freedom comes with a price. The battle isn't always fought on the frontlines. Sometimes citizens here at home have to take a stand to defend our precious liberties. That's the topic of a new film opening across the nation, "Last Ounce of Courage." -CBN/September 14, 2012

^^^*^^^

Last Ounce Of Courage Trailer

<><><>*<><><>

Hate Speech and Foreign Relations

At Opinio Juris, my friend and former colleague Peter Spiro has an interesting post on recent events in Egypt and Libya. Peter argues that there is a foreign relations rationale for banning hate speech. In a world where obscure YouTube videos like “The Innocence of Muslims” can result in the murder of one of our ambassadors, he says, the US should consider banning such material. He notes that European countries have stricter limits on religious hate speech than we and still manage to have functioning democracies.

As I say, it’s an interesting post. Actually, though, this doesn’t seem a workable solution for the US, legally or politically. First, I don’t think Peter means “hate speech,” which typically connotes speech likely to incite violence against minorities. A ban on “hate speech” wouldn’t have applied to “The Innocence of Muslims,” which was not likely to incite violence against anyone, except perhaps the film’s producers. I think the category Peter is looking for is “offensive” speech, specifically, speech that would offend listeners’ religious sensibilities. It’s true that European countries are more comfortable than the US with banning such speech. The ECtHR has ruled that countries can ban religiously offensive speech in certain circumstances — the Otto Preminger Institute case, in which the ECtHR allowed Austria to ban local showing of a film insulting Catholicism, is perhaps the best example. But the ECtHR’s jurisprudence is based on a “human dignity” approach totally different from the American “rights” approach. American constitutional principles would have to be rethought in order to justify a ban on merely “offensive” speech.

Second, the way the world is currently constituted, everyone knows what a ban on religiously offensive speech would mean in practice. The only religiously offensive speech likely to impede American foreign relations nowadays is speech that offends Islam – or, put better, perhaps, speech that offends particular segments of Muslim opinion. One doesn’t hear about attacks on American embassies over speech that offends the sensibilities of Christians, Jews, Buddhists, or Hindus — and there’s plenty such speech on the internet. Perhaps, as Peter says, Americans should generally rethink our willingness to permit religiously offensive speech. But is American public opinion ready for a rule that, in practice, would forbid speech that offends the followers of only one religion? -By Mark L. Movsesian/Center for Law and Religion Forum/September 13, 2012

<><><>*<><><>

Survey: Religious Persecution On The Rise In U.S.

A valedictorian denied the right to pray at her high school graduation; a directive that a campus Christian group may not require its leaders to be Christian; senior citizens ordered by city officials to stop praying before their meals; and the U.S. government telling religious institutions they must provide insurance coverage for abortifacients:

Those are just a few examples of “religious hostility” documented in a survey released by the conservative Family Research Council and the Liberty Institute. The survey found that attacks on Americans’ religious freedoms have dramatically increased, both in frequency and in the types of incidents. ...

"America today would be unrecognizable to our Founders," said Liberty Institute President and CEO Kelly Shackelford. "Our First Liberty is facing a relentless onslaught from well-funded and aggressive groups and individuals who are using the courts, Congress, and the vast federal bureaucracy to suppress and limit religious freedom. This radicalized minority is driven by an anti-religious ideology that is turning the First Amendment upside down.” -By Jon Street/Washington Times/September 10, 2012