Expert: Michael Troy - 4/7/2003

Question
At a creation vs. evolution forum one of the evolutionist, attempting to typify creationists, complained that someone had taken a baseball bat to the "Darwin fish" he had on his pickup.

I responded to his complaint with "I don't condone what happened to your "Darwin Fish" but you must admit that the "Darwin Fish" is mockery. Christians have used the fish symbol since the days of the early church. What makes you think you should have the right to openly mock others because they believe different than you?"

The response I got was " The 1st Amendment."

To this I responded with "The 1st Amendment was NEVER intended to give anyone the right to mock others. The intention of the 1st Amendment is to guarantee the right of individuals to say what they think and believe without fear of government reprisal."

Another person quoted me and continued with "And he is dead wrong. The whole point of freedom of speech is the right to mock the beliefs of others, without government reprisal. As Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes wisely stated, the purpose was "not free thought for those who agree with us but freedom for the thought that we hate."

And my response to that was " It is beyond me how you can get "freedom of speech is the right to mock the beliefs of others" from the quote you referred. What he is saying is that we must respect the thoughts of others even if we hate their thoughts."

After some study and pondering of the 1st Amendment I have come to the conclusion that although mocking the religion of others was not the intent of the amendment, it is protected under the amendment's umbrella.

Can you explain if "mocking others because they believe different than you" is protected by the 1st Amendment and why it is or isn't?


Answer
Hi Billy,

I think there are really two different issues here.  First, yes the First Amendment generally covers mockery, especially in a case like this where the mockery is also designed to make a valid point about evolution making more sense than Christianity (whether we agree with that point or not, it is a real point of debate among thinking people).

Mockery is a valid form of criticism and can be used to affect debate on imporant issues.  About 15 years ago, the Supreme Court decided a case in which Hustler Magazine ran an fake ad showing Jerry Falwell discussing his first sexual experience in an outhouse with his mother.  It was clearly a fake ad and no one would have believed it to be true, but Falwell sued for intentional infliction of emotional distress.  The Supreme Court unanimously held that Hustler had a right to mock Falwell in such a way.

In short, mockery is part of the public debate.  While it may be offensive, governement cannot ban something merely for offending people.  If it could, it could ban just about anything.

If mockery wasn't protected, the goverment would have the right to ban such symbols and imprison those who did it anyway.  I think we could agree that would be bad.

But the First Amendment only covers *government* activity.  The other question implicit in your concerns is whether it was a good idea to have the symbol on one's vehicle.  Just because you have the right to do something, doesn't mean it is necessarily in good taste or considerate about the feelings of others.  For example, I have a *right* to put a Nazi Swastika on the back of my car, but I never would (and just for the record, I'm not comparing creationism to Nazism - I'm just using an extreme example).

The person with the Darwin fish may not have realized it, but he was baiting people who might react badly.  To use another extreme example, a KKK member has the right to tell people his racist views, but if he does it on a street corner in Harlem, alone at night, I could pretty much guarentee that he would get beat up, at least.  I'm not saying its right to beat up people who hold such views, but given his foolish exercise of his rights, I wouldn't be surprised by the consequences.

Personally, as a Christian myself, I could care less if someone had a Darwin fish on his car.  I think whoever bashed in his car was dead wrong and does not represent true Christianity.  But I think your gut instinct in responding to him was not so much whether he had a legal right to show the fish, but whether doing so used good judgement and showed reasonable consideration to others.

I hope this helps!
- Mike