Blasphemy Laws

Tue Jul 3 12:17:09 PDT 2007

Added to Oklahoma's statutes in 1910 and still on the books today:

21 O.S. § 901 Definition of
Blasphemy<http://www.oscn.net/applications/oscn/deliverdocument.asp?lookup=Next&listorder=52000&dbCode=STOKST21&year=>

Blasphemy consists in wantonly uttering or publishing words, casting
contumelious reproach or profane ridicule upon God, Jesus Christ, the Holy
Ghost, the Holy Scriptures or the Christian or any other religion.

 21 O.S. § 902 Exception to
Blasphemy<http://www.oscn.net/applications/oscn/deliverdocument.asp?lookup=Next&listorder=52100&dbCode=STOKST21&year=>

If it appears beyond reasonable doubt that the words complained of were used
in the course of serious discussion, and with intent to make known or
recommend opinions entertained by the accused, such words are not blasphemy.

21 O.S. § 903 Blasphemy -
Misdemeanor<http://www.oscn.net/applications/oscn/deliverdocument.asp?lookup=Next&listorder=52200&dbCode=STOKST21&year=>

Blasphemy is a misdemeanor.

BUT

21 O.S. § 904 Definition of Profane
Swearing<http://www.oscn.net/applications/oscn/deliverdocument.asp?lookup=Next&listorder=52300&dbCode=STOKST21&year=>

Profane swearing consists in any use of the name of God, or Jesus Christ, or
the Holy Ghost, either in imprecating divine vengeance upon the utterer, or
any other person, or in light, trifling or irreverent speech.

21 O.S. § 905 Profane Swearing -
Punishment<http://www.oscn.net/applications/oscn/deliverdocument.asp?lookup=Next&listorder=52400&dbCode=STOKST21&year=>

Every person guilty of profane swearing is punishable by a fine of One
Dollar ($1.00) for each offense.

And -- although "obscene or lascivious language or word" is not defined in
this section, Bono's descriptive would likely fall under this statute:

 21 O.S. § 906 Obscene Language in Public Place, Etc. –
Punishment<http://www.oscn.net/applications/oscn/deliverdocument.asp?lookup=Next&listorder=52500&dbCode=STOKST21&year=>

If any person shall utter or speak any obscene or lascivious language or
word in any public place, or in the presence of females, or in the presence
of children under ten (10) years of age, he shall be liable to a fine of not
more than One Hundred Dollars ($100.00), or imprisonment for not more than
thirty (30) days, or both.

On 7/3/07, Marty Lederman <marty.lederman at comcast.net> wrote:

>  Well, to this day, the *federal* broadcast indecency law 18 U.S.C. §
> 1464, provides that "[w]hoever utters any obscene, indecent, or *profane*language by means of radio communication shall be fined under this title or
> imprisoned not more than two years, or both."  My understanding is that
> until recently, the FCC construed "profane" to mean, in essence,
> "blasphemous," but they had not enforced that prohibition in decades.  *Compare,
> e.g., Duncan v. U.S.,* 48 F.2d 128, 133-134 (9th Cir. 1931) (use of "damn"
> and of the words "By God" in an irreverent sense, coupled with a threat to
> "put on the mantle of the Lord and call down the curse of God" on certain
> persons, was unlawful profane language; citing slews of state cases), *
> with**, e.g., Raycom, Inc.*, 18 FCC Rcd 4186 (2003) (referring to God as a
> "sonofabitch" not profane); *Gagliardo v. U.S.*, 366 F.2d 720, 725 (9th
> Cir. 1966) ("God damn it" not profane).  The agency even suggested that it
> is unconstitutional.  See below.
>
> But the FCC recently dusted off the prohibition on "profane" speech and
> decided that it is *not *limited to religious blasphemy in the Golden
> Globes case, where it held that broadcast of Bono's "This is really,
> really, fucking brilliant" acceptance speech was profane and indecent.
>
> The Second Circuit recently reversed, holding that the FCC's new rules
> were arbitrary and capricious:
> http://www.medialaw.org/Content/NavigationMenu/Publications1/MLRC_MediaLawDaily/Attachments/FCCIndecencyDecision.pdf
>
> The court's short discussion of the "profane" question provides some cites
> that you might want to look at, Doug:
>
> Furthermore, the Commission fails to provide any explanation for why this
> separate ban on profanity is even necessary. Prior to 2004, the Commission
> never attempted to regulate "profane" speech. *In fact, the Commission
> took the view that a separate ban on profane speech was unconstitutional.*See 122 Cong. Rec. 33359, 33359, 33364-65 (1976) (recommending Congress
> delete "profane" from Section 1464 "[b]ecause of the serious constitutional
> problems involved"); FCC, The Public and Broadcasting, 1999 WL 391297 (June
> 1999) ("Profanity that does not fall under one of the above two categories
> [indecent or obscene] is fully protected by the First Amendment and cannot
> be regulated."). The Commission again has not provided this court with a
> reasoned analysis of why it has undertaken this separate regulation of
> speech.
>
>
>
>
>  ----- Original Message -----
> *From:* Douglas Laycock <laycockd at umich.edu>
> *To:* religionlaw at lists.ucla.edu
> *Sent:* Tuesday, July 03, 2007 1:30 PM
> *Subject:* Blasphemy Laws
>
>
>
> A colleague sent me this link to the Massachusetts blasphemy law.  It is
> still on the books, although a quick Westlaw check shows no cases
> interpreting it -- ever.  How many laws like this have survived?  Is anybody
> aware of others?
>
> http://www.mass.gov/legis/laws/mgl/272-36.htm
>
>
>
> Douglas Laycock
> Yale Kamisar Collegiate Professor of Law
> University of Michigan Law School
> 625 S. State St.
> Ann Arbor, MI  48109-1215
>   734-647-9713
>
> ------------------------------
>
> what a curious set of laws we have in the commonwealth...
>
> and why am i not more apt to use the word *contumeliously*?
> http://www.mass.gov/legis/laws/mgl/272-36.htm
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> To post, send message to Religionlaw at lists.ucla.edu
> To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see
> http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw
>
> Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as
> private.  Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are
> posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or
> wrongly) forward the messages to others.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> To post, send message to Religionlaw at lists.ucla.edu
> To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see
> http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw
>
> Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as
> private.  Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are
> posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or
> wrongly) forward the messages to others.
>

-- 
"There is no reason why good cannot triumph as often as evil. The triumph of
anything is a matter of organization. If there are such things as angels, I
hope that they are organized along the lines of the Mafia."

-- Kurt Vonnegut, Jr.
The Sirens of Titan
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.ucla.edu/pipermail/religionlaw/attachments/20070703/4ba0673d/attachment.htm 