272
The. Green Bag.
of the public morals and the destruction of In determining the question of what is blas government. There is nothing, said he, in phemy and what is not, it is probable that our manners or institutions to prevent the our courts will allow a latitude much broader application or the necessity of this part of than the rule laid down by the English court the common law. We stand equally in need 1 of a century ago, granting free discussion now as formerly of all that moral discipline upon controverted points that did not go to and of those principles of virtue which help the truth of Christianity itself; 3 and indeed to bind society together. The general doc the abolition of all common law crimes by trines of Christianity are the faith of this the codes of many States has removed this State. To scandalize their author is a gross offence from the domain of judicial - cogniz violation of decency and good order. Nothing ance. In definition of the common law of is more offensive to the virtuous part of the fense, however, the courts of Pennsylvania community nor more injurious to the tender have held that one is free to argue in good faith against Christianity and its divine origin. morals of the young than to declare such pro fanity lawful. No government has ever been To forbid free discussion would be to abridge so bold as to permit its religion to be insulted freedom of speech and press. Blasphemy with impunity. No security to religious implies more than denial of any religious be freedom forbids judicial cognizance of those lief or principle. There must be a bad offences against religion or morality which motive, a willful and malicious attempt to have no reference to any particular faith or lessen our respect for deity or for the ac creed, but are punishable because they strike cepted religion. "No author or printer who at the root of moral obligations and weaken honestly promulgates those opinions he be the security of social ties.1 The decision in lieves to be true for the benefit of others is this case came up for discussion in the New- answerable as a criminal. Malicious and York constitutional convention of 1821, and mischievous intent is the boundary between right and wrong. It is to be collected from Judge Kent, who was there present, com mented upon and explained the decision, the offensive levity, scurrility, and opprobri saying that the court had never declared ous language and from other circumstances Christianity to be the legal religion of the whether the act be malicious." * To sum up, therefore, this portion of our State, for this would be to consider it an es tablished religion, but only held that to subject, we may conclude in the words of Judge Story that the divine origin and truth revile the author of Christianity in a blas phemous manner and with malicious i itent of Christianity are admitted by the common law and therefore it is not to be maliciously was indictable as an outrage on public de cency and decorum, leading to a breach and openly reviled and blasphemed against of the peace, not because Christianity was to the annoyance of believers, or the injury established by law, but because Christianity of the public.5 He who reviled, subverted was in fact the religion of the people; and or ridiculed Christianity could be punished at common law, because he struck at the this was the principle of that decision.2 root of society and disturbed the common 1 People v. Ruggles, 8 John. (N. Y.), 289. 2 Debates in Convention, 1821 : pp. 374, 462. 463, peace of which the common law was the 574-576. And see Wilson's Lectures 011 Law, Vol. Ill, 453 Uptegraff Vidal Rex v.v.Woolston, Girard's v. Commonwealth, Executors, 2 Strange, 2834. 11How., S. & R., 127 394. (198); cit p. 112; Hale v. Everett, 53, N. H., 1 (204); Cooley's Constitutional Limitations, p. 472; Commonwealth v. Kneeland, 20 Pick. 206 (235); Uptegraff v. Common ing Updtgraff v. Commonwealth, sufra. wealth, ti S. & R. 394.
