In turning against free speech, Western nations turn against their citizens by Jonathan Turley, law professor at George Washington University.

History has shown that once governments begin to police speech, they find ever more of it to combat. Not only does this trend threaten free speech, freedom of association and a free press, it undermines free exercise of religion. Countries such as Saudi Arabia don’t prosecute blasphemers to protect the exercise of all religions but to protect one religion.

Western ideals are based on the premise that free speech contains its own protection: good speech ultimately prevails over bad. There’s no blasphemy among free nations, only orthodoxy and those who seek to challenge it.

I could not agree more. I wrote to the Attorney General of Tasmania in 2003 to express my disapproval of the current Blasphemy law in this state. Sadly, it still stands under the criminal code. My letter in part,

Clearly I urge people not to blaspheme. But along with Voltaire I would prefer to endure disrespect to my beliefs, including irreverence towards the God of my religious beliefs, than curtail the right of a person to express those beliefs: ‘I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.’ The fact that blasphemy is a crime under our Tasmanian legislation is potentially dangerous to free and honest conversation about deeply held religious beliefs. Religious discourse and debate is vital in a multi-religious democratic society.

In conclusion, I believe the crime of blasphemy should be removed from the criminal code and we should work towards social harmony through our own offices. A high priority must be given to the education of Tasmanians in different religious beliefs and practices. Such education should not be shy of religious difference but lead to understanding and acceptance and the capacity to hold religious difference in life and conversation with integrity and dignity.