Free Speech and Public Order Exceptions: A Case for the U.S. Standard

"An opinion that corn-dealers are starvers of the poor, or that private property is robbery, ought to be unmolested when simply circulated through the press, but may justly incur punishment when delivered orally to an excited mob assembled before the house of a corn-dealer, or when handed about among the same mob in the form of a placard."- John Stuart Mill, On Liberty (1859)"Any person of the Quadiani group or the Lahori group (who call themselves 'Ahmadis' or by any other name), who directly or indirectly, poses himself as a Muslim, or calls, or refers to, his faith as Islam, or preaches or propagates his faith, or invites others to accept his faith, by words, either spoken or written, or by visible representations, or in any manner whatsoever outrages the religious feelings of Muslims shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine."- Pakistani Penal Code 298-CINTRODUCTIONEvery society must deal with speech that could potentially lead to violence. Governments in several Muslim-majority countries have struggled to develop proper constitutional protections for free speech and religious freedom. The challenge has been especially clear in countries like Pakistan, where religious violence is widespread. Yet, while the unrest has increased demands for speech restrictions, the key to stability is liberty.This Paper will focus on Pakistan's speech restrictions under its blasphemy laws-the source of some of the most egregious religious freedom violations in the world. Pakistan's blasphemy laws often lead to riots, community violence, and infringement of basic human rights. For example, on May 7, 2014, human rights lawyer Rashid Rehman was murdered for defending Junaid Hafeez, a poet and Fulbright scholar, who was accused by his students of insulting the Prophet Muhammad on Facebook.1 The accusations were baseless, but as with most cases of blasphemy charges in Pakistan no real evidence was needed. Hafeez was charged by the police and was defenseless without a lawyer when Rehman agreed to represent Hafeez in court.2 The government did nothing to protect Rehman, who received death threats even as he stood in front of the judge in the courtroom.3The blasphemy laws persecute not only Pakistan's Muslims, but also its religious minorities. In June 2009, a Pakistani Christian woman, Aasia Bibi, offered water to fellow farm workers.4They refused to accept on the grounds that she was a Christian and, therefore, they believed the water must be contaminated. An exchange of words occurred, with each side defending their religion. Allegedly, Aasia insulted the Prophet Muhammad by saying, "The Quran is fake and your prophet remained in bed for one month before his death because he had worms in his ears and mouth. He married Khadija just for money and, after looting her, kicked her out of the house." A few days later, a mob set upon Aasia, and the police rescued her from certain death. However, the police later charged her with committing blasphemy and held her in isolation for 17 months while she awaited trial.5Aasia Bibi was found guilty of blasphemy and the local court ruled that there were "no mitigating circumstances," sentencing her to death by hanging.6 This unfortunate event reveals the contradiction of Pakistan's blasphemy laws, which are premised on protecting public order, but once again appeased rather than controlled violent extremists, giving them license to bully a religious minority while the police and justice system looked the other way.This Paper will explain why and how policy makers can use the U.S. free speech standard to guide the formulation of free speech standards in other countries such as Pakistan. Part I will explain the current state of religious freedom in Pakistan and other similar countries, in particular as it relates to the religious speech and alleged blasphemy. …