Международная практика применения законов о богохульстве
“Blasphemy laws’ prohibits denigration of religion or religious symbols, irrespective of whether this constitutes hatred towards the religion’s adherents.
Several established democracies still have blasphemy provisions on the books, although most of these are rarely, if ever, used. Anti-blasphemy laws exist in Austria, Denmark, Finland, Greece, Italy, Liechtenstein, Iceland, the Netherlands and San Marino, although they are rarely used. Norway saw its last case in 1936 and Denmark in 1938.
In the United Kingdom blasphemy was abolished in 2008 but prior to that the law had been applied only twice since 1923.
Other countries, including Sweden and Spain, have repealed their blasphemy laws.
In the United States, the Supreme Court steadfastly strikes down any legislation prohibiting blasphemy, on the grounds that even well-meaning censors would be tempted to favor one religion over another, as well as because it “is not the business of government ... to suppress real or imagined attacks upon a particular religious doctrine ...”
Joseph Burstyn, Inc. v. Wilson Supreme Court decision of 1952, also known as the Miracle decision. The decisions concerned the distribution of the short film Il Miracolo (“The Miracle”) produce by Italian neorealist Roberto Rosellini starring young Federico Fellini, who also wrote the script, and Anna Magnani. Fellini played a vagabond man, whom the heroine mistakes for St. Joseph, who seduces Anna Magnani’s peasant girl believing herself to be Virgin Mary. She is half-witted and, on finding herself pregnant, decides it was immaculate conception. The villagers took a more scientifically sound view of things and kept tormenting an unfortunate girl. Rosellini, who was religious in his own way, felt that the film carried a strong message of love, forgiveness, and acceptance, which was very Christian.
Funny thing is Vatical, although disapproving, did not ban the movie. The Vatican's semi-official newspaper, Osservatore Romano, published a guardedly appreciative review, noting that "objections from a religious viewpoint are very grave," but also pointing to "scenes of undoubted screen value," and concluding that "we still believe in Rossellini's art."
New York city and Catholic Church officials were a lot dumber and demanded the movie be banned. The city authorities did ban it citing that the movie “parodied the Immaculate Conception and Virgin Birth - concepts "sacred to millions of our people” (sounds familiar?). The movie distributor Joseph Burstyn filed a lawsuit against the city citing the First Amendment clause that prohibited Congress from passing any law respecting an establishment of religion, which was essentially taken to mean separation of church and the state. He went through lower courts that upheld the ban. Then the case went to the Supreme Court that overturned the ban on the ground that sacrilege was too vague a term to be permissible under the First Amendment.
The decision essentially abolished the application of the so-called New York Education Law that allowed a movie to be censored if the content was deemed “sacrilegious”. And marked a decline in movie censorship in the US. Some states (Massachusetts, Michigan, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Wyoming, and Pennsylvania) still have blasphemy laws on their books although the Supreme Court decision makes them unenforceable. Numerous attempts, however, are being made in the US on the local level to ban or suppress works of arts, movies, paintings, books, on the ground that it offends some religious sensibilities or other. Religious groups have also been successful in preventing artists they don’t like from getting state support through the state program National Endowment for the Arts. All this is essentially giving one group the right of censorship.
However, when the matters come before the courts, courts routinely side with the freedom of speech. Interestingly, censorship of movies was permitted for a long time because it was considered that movies were not protected by First Amendment. The Joseph Burstyn, Inc. v. Wilson Supreme Court decision extended the First Amendment protection to films, and was the beginning of the end of censorship. American public sees freedom of speech as one of those sacred cows hardly anyone would dare be against.
In Greece, three actors were arrested in June of 2012 and charged with “blasphemy”. The three actors were taking part in a staging of the play Corpus Christi, directed by Laertes Vassiliou for the theater company Artisan. Corpus Christi, by Terrence McNally, portrays Jesus of Nazareth and his disciples as homosexuals living in Texas, US. The Athens production is not the first to have caused controversy since its 1998 premiere in New York. However the sexual themes, and a scene in which Jesus administers a same-sex marriage, remain highly relevant to ongoing debates about religion and society. http://www.iheu.org/humanists-call-abolition-blasphemy-laws-greece-following-arrests
The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) has stressed on numerous occasions that freedom of expression constitutes “one of the essential foundations of [a democratic] society”, and this includes the expression of ideas which “offend, shock or disturb the State or any sector of the population”. In a 2008 report, the European Commission for Democracy through Law (the Council of Europe’s advisory body on constitutional matters) recommended that “the offense of blasphemy should be abolished (which is already the case in most European States) and should not be reintroduced”. http://www.iheu.org/
The Republic of Ireland passed the "Defamation Act 2009" in that year, which states in part, "A person who publishes or utters blasphemous matter shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable upon conviction on indictment to a fine not exceeding €25,000."
UN article 19 on freedom of expression - the application of the article 19 (on restriction on the freedom of expression).
“Prohibitions of displays of lack of respect for a religion or other belief system, including blasphemy laws, are incompatible with the Covenant . . . Thus, for instance, it would be impermissible for any such laws to discriminate in favor of or against one or certain religions or belief systems, or their adherents over another, or religious believers over non-believers. Nor would it be permissible for such prohibitions to be used to prevent or punish criticism of religious leaders or commentary on religious doctrine and tenets of faith.”
As you see, our farce with Pussy Riot violated every imaginable international law not to mention common sense.
A favorite example or our defenders of Orthodox religion is Finland. First, they prosecuted Jussi Halla-aho for saying Mohamed was a pedophile, because he married a 9 years-old girl. He was fined by the lower court €330, but the case has gone to the Supreme Court, where he was charged with hate speech in addition to blasphemy.
Recently, the case of Teivo Teivo Teivainen, Professor of University of Helsinki, who tried to replay the Pussy riot act in the Helsinki Cathedral. On 08-21-12. The University of Helsinki issue a correction claiming that the reports, particularly in Russian press, were incorrect and that Teivo Teivainen was conducting an art walking tour that stopped in front of the Orthodox Uspenski Cathedral. Teivainen did not attempt to enter the cathedral, he is not arrested or charged with anything. (http://www.helsinki.fi/news/archive/8-2012/16-16-08-30.html). A group of Finnish public figures sent a letter demanding Teivainen be fired but the University claims it won’t do it. It seems that the University is mortally afraid to get the sort of publicity Russia got. Here is another disclaimer (http://www.hs.fi/english/article/NEWS+ANALYSIS+Pussy+Riot+the+professor+and+playing+the+media+game+/1329104670372): they blame one person, Johan Bäckman, one of the five Finns who signed that letter to University of Helsinki.
They say that “In Finland disturbing the peace of religious practice would bring only fines. According to the penal code, the maximum sentence would be six months in prison”. Indeed, Jussi Halla-aho was only fined. But it seems Finland doesn’t want a repetition of that publicity.