Thomas wrote:It seems that at least one of three things has happened. (1) I have misunderstood what we are disagreeing about, (2) Georgeob1 didn't have the whole context of our discussion when he posted; (3) JW changed the subject on me in the middle of the debate.
I did. I apologize, but I thought the discussion had wound down. Oops.
Thomas wrote:As I understand it, we were talking about the difference between German and American law with regard to the Mohammed caricatures. In America, the relevant rule is the First Amendment. Your Supreme Court interprets it to mean that all prohibitions are unconstitutional except when it prevents a clear and imminent danger. (There are other constraints, but they don't apply here.)
Free speech in the U.S. means just that. It doesn't mean we're free to say what we want until it offends someone. The latter isn't acceptable to me. There are other ways of dealing with excessive offense against religion other than demanding it end. Boycotts and debating against it on its merits are both civilized; threatening death to anyone who breaks the tenets of a religion is not.
Thomas wrote:German law, by contrast, prohibits the public insulting of a religion in a manner "that is capable of disturbing the public peace". That's a weaker constraint on government regulation of speech -- but it's a difference in degree, not in kind. Your current Supreme Court Our would probably hold our criminal law unconstitutional. But the distance is fairly small, and the Supreme Court may well bridge it if incorporates more foreign law into the constitution -- or if it reverts to a more originalist interpretation.
I'm not sure if the fashion ad I mentioned that was banned in France would also be banned in Germany. I suppose you wouldn't really know until the ad ran and someone "disturbed the peace". In France's case, it was merely written protest by some bishops, although I believe it did end up in the courts.
Thomas wrote:So in contrast to what georgeob1 and mysteryman imply, I don't think that an originalist interpretation would necessarily yield bad results. But JW has clearly implied that he sees German law as a compelling reason to appoint conservatives to the Supreme Court. I simply don't see where he's coming from here. If he's afraid of hearing "fatwas hurled from the bench", he certainly needn't fear German law. Our courts don't hurl fatwas from their benches either.
I wasn't thinking exclusively about German law when I made my statement about Dubya's excellent choices, but rather international law in general. Germany and France are not the only countries to have enacted blasphemy laws. and it's not only those laws that I'm concerned with. My statement about fatwas wasn't made from fear, nor did I intend to imply that Germany had engaged in that. It's my hope that the makeup of the U.S. Court, as it stands now, would preclude any further inspection of international precedents to select the "proper" laws.
BTW, I'm a "she", and all of this is, of course, merely my opinion.
