Blasphemy Laws And Us Constitutional Limits
✅ 1. Overview
Blasphemy refers to speech or actions deemed offensive to religious beliefs or deities. Historically, some U.S. states had blasphemy laws, inherited from English common law, criminalizing such speech. However, as U.S. constitutional jurisprudence evolved—particularly the First Amendment—such laws have been widely deemed unconstitutional.
✅ 2. The First Amendment Framework
The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution states:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech..."
This provides two main protections relevant to blasphemy laws:
Free Speech Clause: Protects expression, even offensive speech, including religious criticism.
Establishment Clause: Prohibits the government from favoring one religion over another, or religion over non-religion.
Together, they render blasphemy laws unconstitutional because they:
Penalize certain viewpoints (anti-religious or irreverent ones).
Give legal preference to religious orthodoxy.
✅ 3. Detailed Case Law Analysis (More Than 5 Cases)
🔹 1. Joseph Burstyn, Inc. v. Wilson (1952)
U.S. Supreme Court
Facts:
New York banned the Italian film The Miracle for being “sacrilegious,” under a statute that allowed denial of film licenses based on blasphemy.
Issue:
Can the government censor a film for being sacrilegious without violating the First Amendment?
Holding:
No. The Court held that the term "sacrilegious" was too vague and unconstitutional under the First and Fourteenth Amendments.
Significance:
Struck down blasphemy-based censorship.
Affirmed that religious offense is not a constitutional basis for restricting expression.
Key quote: “It is not the business of government… to suppress real or imagined attacks upon a particular religious doctrine.”
🔹 2. Kalman v. Cortes (2009, Eastern District of Pennsylvania)
Federal District Court (Not Supreme Court)
Facts:
A man attempted to register a business name “I Choose Hell Productions,” but the Pennsylvania Bureau of Corporations rejected it under a statute banning names considered blasphemous or profane.
Issue:
Did rejecting a corporate name based on blasphemy violate the First Amendment?
Holding:
Yes. The court struck down the statute as content-based and viewpoint-discriminatory, violating free speech.
Significance:
Reinforced that government cannot deny access to public benefits (like corporate status) based on religiously offensive language.
Applied strict scrutiny to viewpoint-based restrictions.
🔹 3. State v. Mockus (1921, Maine Supreme Judicial Court)
Facts:
Mockus, a Lithuanian immigrant and self-proclaimed atheist, publicly denied the existence of God and mocked Christianity. He was convicted under Maine's blasphemy law.
Issue:
Was his conviction for blasphemy constitutional?
Holding (at the time):
Yes. The court upheld the conviction, stating his statements attacked fundamental religious truths.
Later Perspective:
While upheld in 1921, modern constitutional doctrine would likely strike this down under the First Amendment.
Significance:
Serves as a historical example of pre-First Amendment incorporation jurisprudence.
Demonstrates how far the law has evolved toward broader free speech protections.
🔹 4. State v. Margaret McKee (1977, Pennsylvania Court)
Facts:
McKee was convicted under Pennsylvania's blasphemy law for statements made during a protest.
Issue:
Was the blasphemy statute constitutional?
Holding:
The court upheld the conviction at the time, but the statute was later challenged again in Kalman v. Cortes (above) and ultimately struck down.
Significance:
Another example of older blasphemy laws persisting into modern times until judicially invalidated.
🔹 5. People v. Ruggles (1811, New York Supreme Court)
Facts:
Ruggles made public statements attacking Christianity and Jesus. He was prosecuted under a common law blasphemy theory.
Issue:
Was prosecution for public blasphemy legal?
Holding:
Yes, at that time. The court stated that while religious liberty was protected, attacks on Christianity could be punished because Christianity was seen as part of the law.
Significance:
A pre-First Amendment incorporation case.
Used for historical context—modern courts reject this reasoning due to constitutional protections.
🔹 6. Epperson v. Arkansas (1968, U.S. Supreme Court)
Facts:
A teacher challenged a law prohibiting the teaching of evolution because it contradicted the biblical account of creation.
Issue:
Did the law violate the Establishment Clause?
Holding:
Yes. The Court held the law unconstitutionally favored a religious viewpoint, violating the Establishment Clause.
Significance:
Though not a blasphemy case per se, it reinforces the ban on religious favoritism in public policy.
Helpful in analyzing laws that protect religious doctrine from criticism.
🔹 7. Texas v. Johnson (1989, U.S. Supreme Court)
Facts:
Johnson burned an American flag in protest and was prosecuted under a statute prohibiting desecration.
Issue:
Can offensive symbolic speech be criminalized?
Holding:
No. The Court held the government cannot ban speech simply because it is offensive.
Significance:
Though not about religion, this case strongly supports protections for controversial expression, including religious blasphemy.
Reinforces that offense is not a constitutional basis for criminal liability.
✅ 5. Summary of Legal Principles
| Principle | Explanation |
|---|---|
| Government neutrality in religion | Laws cannot punish speech that offends religious doctrines |
| Content and viewpoint neutrality | Speech cannot be restricted just because it attacks or mocks religion |
| Blasphemy laws are unconstitutional | Courts have consistently ruled such laws violate the First and Fourteenth Amendments |
| Free speech includes offensive speech | The First Amendment protects controversial, dissenting, or blasphemous views |
| Pre-20th century cases are outdated | Early decisions supporting blasphemy laws no longer align with modern standards |
✅ 6. Conclusion
While blasphemy laws were once enforced in some U.S. states, modern constitutional jurisprudence renders them unenforceable. The First Amendment’s protections for free speech and against religious establishment ensure that individuals can express even offensive or irreverent views about religion without fear of criminal prosecution.
Courts have repeatedly affirmed that the government has no role in protecting religious sentiments or punishing heresy or blasphemy, making the U.S. a stronghold for free and open discourse on religious matters.
RELATED Blog
0 comments