1. Religion, Free Expression,
and Libraries
Paul Sturges
Almuth Gastinger
Deborah Caldwell-Stone

2. Blasphemy and Defamation of
Religion Laws: A Challenge to
Freedom of Expression
Paul Sturges
Loughborough University, UK
University of Pretoria, South Africa

3. The Right to Freedom of Expression
• Freedom of Expression is widely accepted as a
universal Human Right.
• As such it is protected in Article 19 of the UN
Universal Declaration on Human Rights
• The right is a basis for
– Free and uncensored media and communications
– Information disseminating institutions such as
libraries
– Laws on access to information
– Effective democratic governance
• Protecting and strengthening Freedom of
Expression is the rationale for this presentation

4. The nature of religious objection to
Freedom of Expression
• For the purposes of this
presentation, religious objections are
defined as:
– Blasphemy (Insults to religion itself);
– Giving Offence (Perhaps through
blasphemy, but specifically with the intent to
inflict distress on believers);
– Incitement to hatred or violence (hate
speech).
• The so-called „Defamation of Religion‟
adds a fresh dimension to this.

5. Defining Blasphemy
• Dictionaries do not help very much
• In modern English usage it means:
– Cursing and swearing
• More relevant meanings refer to:
– Irreverent, sacrilegious, disrespectful, sinful,
wicked, evil talk
• These basically refer to denying the truth
of religion or insulting religion.

6. Salman Taseer and Assia Bibi

7. A blasphemy case
• On 4th Jan 2011 Pakistani politician Salman
Taseer was assassinated because he had
proposed amending the blasphemy law
• Taseer had defended a Christian woman Aasia
Bibi, who was sentenced to death for some
alleged minor insult to Islam
• The law is notorious because of its exploitation
in personal disputes and the possibility of a
death penalty.
• Taseer‟s assassin and supporters did not accuse
him of blasphemy, merely of seeking to amend
the law.

8. A withdrawal?
• March 2011, after the murder of Salman Taseer
on 4th Jan 2011, Pakistan submitted a new
resolution on discrimination the UNHRC without
the reference to Defamation of Religion.
• Taseer‟s martyrdom seems to have taught some
sort of lesson in
– Logic (religion does not have human rights)
– Humanity (Blasphemy and Defamation Laws can be
an incitement to violence).
• Pakistan‟s Blasphemy Laws remain in force and
other countries have such laws.

9. Blasphemy in Greece
• Section 7 of the Greek Penal Code „Offences
against religious peace‟ includes:
– Public and malicious blasphemy against God
– Blasphemy against the Greek Orthodox Church or any
other tolerated religion.
• There seems to be no record of cases under
Section 7 protecting other religions.
• The State does bring prosecutions protecting the
Orthodox Church.

10. Blasphemy in the UK
• In 2008 MPs voted to support the abolition
of blasphemy in an amendment to the
Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill.
• In May of that year this received Royal
Assent, condemning the laws to history.
• The laws only protected Christianity and
were widely regarded as discriminatory.
• They had fallen into disuse and were last
invoked in 1977.

11. Giving offence?
• Satirical content and performances that
challenge religion are often offensive to
believers
• Defenders of satire say that it is protected as
part of the human right of freedom of
expression
• They add that avoiding offence can lead to self
suppression of significant commentary
• Cartoons published in Denmark in 2005 proved
catastrophically offensive to Muslims
• (See Sturges, Limits to Freedom of
Expression?, Journal of
Documentation, 32, 2006)

12. Hate speech
• Disparages a person or a group on the basis of
some characteristic such as
race, gender, ethnicity, nationality, religion, sexu
al orientation.
• Laws prohibit it in many countries because of
possible harmful consequences, but
• Some of these laws (eg in Poland) refer not only
to the consequences, but the offence that might
be caused to the people targeted.

13. Defamation of Religion
• Resolutions on respect for religion and against
defamation of religion have been brought to UN
forums since 2002 generally on behalf of the
Organisation of the Islamic Conference
• “Defamation of religion is a serious affront to
human dignity leading to a restriction on the
freedom of their adherents and incitement to
religious violence” Statement by Pakistani
officials to the UN Human Rights Commission
supporting such a resolution in 2009.
• The non-binding resolution was passed (23
for, 11 against, 13 abstaining).

14. The problem with Defamation of
Religion
• Canada‟s representative to the UNHRC pointed
out that individuals have rights, not religions.
• Defamation of Religion seeks to outlaw:
– Blasphemy
– Because it gives offence, and
– Allegedly directs hatred and violence towards
adherents of religions.
• The three are connected, but in the way the
resolutions suggest?

15. Does Religion have Protection?
• The UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights
protects religious belief.
• Article 18 says: Everyone has the right to
freedom of thought, conscience and religion;
this right includes
– freedom to change his religion or belief, and
– freedom, either alone or in community with others
and in public or private, to manifest his religion or
belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance
• This is strong protection for believers, though
religion itself is not protected.

16. Conclusions
• Freedom of Expression is the essential ethical
underpinning of all forms of communication.
• Human Rights Declarations and Conventions
protect it, but religion is a disputable area
– Criticism of religion (even if offensive) is protected,
– Expression of hatred towards believers is not worthy
of protection.
• This line of argument leads into difficult areas
• It is not always popular but that does not make
it less valid.

17. Ethical Perspectives on
Donations to Libraries
Almuth Gastinger
Senior Research Librarian
Norwegian University of Science and Technology
Trondheim, Norway
OIF and IFLA FAIFE webinar
15th November 2011

18. Ethical approaches to librarianship
• Starting point: the right to Freedom of
Expression.
• This right provides a strong ethical basis for
librarianship.
• The right is generally taken to include
– Freedom of Opinion and
– Freedom of Access to Information.
• Examples of strong national statements of this
right:
– The First Amendment to the American Constitution
– The new Article 100 of the Norwegian Constitution
• This right is also accepted internationally.

19. Freedom of Expression
• Article 19 of The UN Universal Declaration on
Human Rights (1948) says „Everyone has the right
to Freedom of Expression‟.
• But limits to Freedom of Expression in European
Convention on Human Rights (1950) in Article 10:
– National security
– Prevention of disorder or crime
– Protection of health and morals
• Governments prefer to define limits broadly, but in
principle individuals or groups should have the
fullest possible freedom of expression and access.

20. Donations to libraries
• Donations are still part of collection development
but amount is decreasing (at least in academic
libraries).
• The ethical problem of donations to libraries:
– Libraries have few resources for handling of donations
and limited storage space for print materials, therefore
– Libraries must select.
– Selection implies sometimes rejecting material.
• Donations are a particular problem in developing
countries, where lack of funding brings the
temptation to accept everything.

21. Donations as Freedom of
Expression
• Some groups claim that they are denied freedom
of expression by governments and their
agencies (even when there are no laws
excluding them).
• The Church of Scientology makes this case in
relation to its donations to libraries.
• It alleges that libraries reject its donations and
are thus denying readers the chance to learn
about its beliefs.
• Are libraries actually infringing donors‟ freedom
of expression if their gifts are excluded?

22. The Scientology donations case
• New Era Publishing (Scientology‟s publisher) sends
out sets of up to 17 books by L.R. Hubbard to
libraries all over the world, arguing that this
reflects freedom of expression.
• Some librarians (mainly from Central European
countries) reject these, because they reflect the
views of an organisation seen as
dangerous, harmful and aggressive in
disseminating its books.
• Libraries in Germany and France (and probably
elsewhere) seem to have been throwing them
away, and saying that Scientology was under
surveillance or some kind of official ban.

23. Situation in Germany
• Libraries reject donations from Scientology, often
only arguing that they are not allowed by the
Federal Office for the Protection of the
Constitution (OPC), even if this office has stated
that Scientology does not behave
unconstitutionally.
• Thus German libraries violate their Code of
Ethics, adopted in 2007: “We choose information
resources exclusively according to objective criteria …
regardless of personal preferences and influences of
third parties”.

24. Rejecting donations from Scientology
• Some librarians are undoubtedly comfortable with
rejecting donations from unpopular organisations
without ethical based reasons.
• Librarians who support freedom of expression may
not find it so acceptable.
• Arguably, by rejecting donations from
organisations that librarians do not like, libraries
do frustrate freedom of expression.
• What is the ethical approach to this problem?

25. Policy on library
collection development (1)
• As suggested earlier, because of limited resources
libraries cannot accept and stock all donations.
• This means that they need a collection
development policy stating:
– Which subjects covered,
– How to achieve balance and fairness,
– How to deal with donations and how to communicate
with donors.
• The policy should be
– Drafted consultatively,
– Made available for inspection to users, donors, funders,
– Revised when appropriate.

26. Policy on library
collection development (2)
• Policy should tell in detail:
- Criteria for including donations in the collection
(subjects, quality of material etc),
- What will be done with unwanted donations (return to
donor, sale, disposal or others).
• A policy may not satisfy everyone, but it is the
only fair response to criticism from donors.

27. Summary and conclusion (1)
• Despite agreement on value of freedom of
expression this value often clashes with
librarians‟ moral principles and political beliefs, in
particular concerning donations from not
generally accepted religious groups and sects.
• The answer to this conflict must be a code of
ethics for librarians and a collection development
policy that includes a statement about
donations.
• Such a policy will have a clear ethical basis if
– it is openly stated and balanced and fair, and
– decisions are clearly made on the basis of that policy.

28. Summary and conclusion (2)
• Freedom of expression through library
donations and the right to donate does not
mean the right to have donations
accepted.
• But users should be able to find a diversity
of views represented in the library.
• Libraries and librarians must be
neutral, trusting their users to draw their
own conclusions from the material
available to them in the library.

29. Let Us Pray @ Your Library:
The First Amendment and
Public Library Meeting Rooms
Deborah Caldwell-Stone
Office for Intellectual Freedom
American Library Association

30. The U.S. Constitution and Religion
“Congress shall make no law respecting an
establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free
exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of
speech, or of the press; or the right of the
people peaceably to assemble, and to petition
the government for a redress of grievances.”
~~ Amendment I, U.S. Constitution

31. The U.S. Constitution and Religion
The Establishment Clause was adopted to prohibit
the federal government from declaring and
financially supporting a national religion.
Government actions or laws violate the Establishment
Clause if:
• they either have a predominantly religious
purpose, or
• they have the principal or primary effect of
advancing religion or inhibiting religion.

32. The U.S. Constitution and Religion
The Free Exercise Clause was adopted to prohibit the
federal government from adopting laws that
burden an individual's ability to exercise his or her
religious beliefs.
Government actions or laws violate the Free Exercise
Clause if:
• they burden an individual's ability to exercise
his or her religious beliefs, or
• they discriminate against persons or groups
holding particular religious beliefs

33. Ethical Principles
Library Bill of Rights
“Libraries that make exhibit spaces and meeting
rooms available to the public they serve should
make such facilities available on an equitable
basis, regardless of the beliefs or affiliations of
individuals or groups requesting their use.”

34. The Public Library and Religious Expression
Government agencies that open their facilities for
public use cannot exclude groups on the basis of
their religious character or because they may
engage in religious activities.
“Public libraries” – that is, libraries that are publicly
funded and operated by a government or
government agency – are bound by these legal
rules.

35. The Public Library and Religious Expression
– A public library may not engage in activities that have
a predominantly religious purpose.
– A public library is not obligated to provide access to its
meeting rooms, display cases, and other facilities.
– If a public library chooses to open its meeting rooms
and other facilities to public use, it cannot
disadvantage or exclude speakers or groups from using
their facilities solely because of their religious views or
the religious content of their speech.

36. Library Meeting Rooms and the Courts
Concerned Women for America, Inc. v. Lafayette County
(1989)
Pfeifer v. City of West Allis (2000)
Citizens for Community Values, Inc. v. Upper Arlington Public
Library (2008)
-- Each of these court opinions hold that public libraries cannot
not exclude religious groups from library meeting rooms on
the grounds that the groups might discuss religious topics or
engage in religious practices during the meeting.

37. Library Meeting Rooms and the Courts
Concern: Implied approval or endorsement of particular
religious beliefs and practices that will violate the
Establishment Clause.
Court decisions hold that a religious group's use of public
facilities like a library meeting room will not violate the
Establishment Clause if no one would think the library
endorses the religious group's message or activity.

38. Library Meeting Rooms and the Courts
BUT WAIT A MINUTE …
Faith Center Church Evangelistic Ministries v. Glover
(a.k.a. “The Contra Costa case”)
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the library's
policy excluding religious activity on the grounds that
the library had a legitimate interest in screening and
excluding meeting room activities that could interfere
with the library‟s primary mission; since the group had
advertised its event as a religious service, it could be
excluded.
What‟s going on here?

39. Library Meeting Rooms and the Courts
On closer examination:
The Ninth Circuit also held that the library could not prohibit
religious groups from engaging in religious activities other
than worship, like Bible instruction, praying, singing, sharing
testimony, and discussing political or social issues
The Ninth Circuit also warned that the library had to exercise
caution when trying to distinguish between ordinary religious
activities and a worship service. (The Contra Costa group
self-identified their activity as a “worship service.”)

40. Library Meeting Rooms and the Courts
The Ninth Circuit asked the trial court to determine
whether the library could apply its policy without
deciding whether a proposed use constituted "worship."
The trial court struck down the policy on the grounds that
the policy required library staff to determine whether a
proposed event constituted worship, thereby
impermissibly entangling the public library with religion.

41. Policy Guidelines
Meeting room policies should:
– Describe the facility with particularity and define
who is eligible to use the facility.
– Regulate the time, place, or manner of use without
reference to the content of a meeting or to the
beliefs or affiliations of the sponsors
– Avoid specific clauses addressing religious activities
or worship.

42. Policy Guidelines
Remember:
– No court has ever ruled that the Establishment Clause
requires libraries to prohibit meeting room use by religious
groups engaged in worship.
– If a library‟s meeting room policy requires staff to
determine when a group has crossed the line from a
"meeting" to a "worship service,“ that activity itself may
violate Establishment Clause.
– Non-discriminatory limits on scheduling, times of
use, amplification, and signage can help the library assure
that its facilities serve the entire community.

43. Alliance Defense Fund
Conservative Christian organization that is pursuing
a letter-writing campaign that targets libraries
whose meeting room policies restrict the use of
the library's meeting rooms for religious services.
ADF has filed multiple lawsuits against libraries that
refused meeting room space to religious speakers
and groups.

44. Alliance Defense Fund
If you receive a letter …
– Only communicate with ADF through legal counsel.
– Review and revise your meeting room policy with
neutral legal counsel and/or OIF assistance.
– Remember that ADF cannot sue libraries without
standing – that is, ADF or its representatives must have
been denied use of a meeting room on religious
grounds.

45. Questions?
Thank you!
R.P.Sturges@lboro.ac.uk
Almuth.Gastinger@ub.ntnu.no
dstone@ala.org