Blasphemous libel is a common lawcriminal offence in the United Kingdom. This article concerns the common-law legal system, as contrasted with the civil law legal system; for other meanings of the term, within the field of law, see common law (disambiguation). ... Criminal law (also known as penal law) is the body of law that punishes criminals for committing offences against the state. ...
Where there has been a guilty verdict for the "composing, printing or publishing" of blasphemous or seditious libel, section 1 of the Criminal Libel Act 1819 gives to the court the power to order the search for and seizure of the material.
In New Zealand it is illegal under the Crimes Act 1961 (Section 123) to publish any blasphemous libel. The maximum punishment is one year imprisonment. No one can be prosecuted without the consent of the Attorny General.
However there is a defence in New Zealand law: "It is not an offence against this section to express in good faith and in decent language, or to attempt to establish by arguments used in good faith and conveyed in decent language, any opinion whatever on any religious subject."
He observed that blasphemouslibel is an anachronism of English history from a time when the State was intrinsically linked with the Church, through the Ecclesiastical courts, and the unity of State and Church was not transported to the Australian colony.
As for reasons why blasphemouslibel might still exist in Victoria, Justice Harper merely noted the existence of section 469AA of the Crimes Act (Vic) and stated that there is a body of law which suggests that blasphemouslibel may exist in Victoria.
If blasphemouslibel did exist, Justice Harper held the view that it would have to be shown that the exhibition of Piss Christ raised the risk of a breach of the peace.
Defamatory libel is matter published, without lawful justification or excuse, that is likely to injure the reputation of any person by exposing him to hatred, contempt or ridicule, or that is designed to insult the person of or concerning whom it is published.
The proprietor of the newspaper is liable for the libel unless he proves that the defamatory matter was published without his knowledge and without negligence on his part.
Given that criminallibel requires knowledge of falsity and an intent to defame, the Court reasoned that speech covered by criminallibel is of minimal value, and therefore the infringement on freedom of expression is justifiable under the Charter.
Feeds |
Contact