09 May 06
5 edits
Originally posted by NimzofishFrom the reports I’ve seen, i think the Cardinal was thinking in terms of some kind of action on the grounds of blasphemy (his concern seems to be that Christian beliefs have been ridiculed). I have absolutely no idea what his chances of success are though…
From the reports I’ve seen, i think the Cardinal was thinking in terms of some kind of action on the grounds of blasphemy (his concern seems to be that Christian beliefs have been ridiculed). I have absolutely no idea what his chances of success are though…
However, I think Opus Dei have good grounds for launching a libel action in Britain given that: ...[text shortened]... ested can find a summery of UK libel laws at
http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/actionnetwork/A1183394
I don't think blasphemy has been a crime or tort in the developed world for many, many years. Further, I doubt that the threat of imminent blasphemy has ever been successfully used as the basis for an injunction.
a)Dan Brown frames his novel by highlighting the ‘factual’ nature of his work and points to his meticulous research, which can reasonably be said to have led others to believe that the fictional suppositions which follow in the main part of the novel were equally factual.
The only people dense enough to have made such inferences, especially in light of the clear disclaimer on the copyright page that the entire work is a work of fiction, are people who don't believe the putatively factual assertions anyway.
b)Opus Dei is both implicitly libelled through its depiction as an organisation that would willingly engage in criminal acts and explicitly libelled through Brown’s portryal (as fact) of old, unproven, allegations of fianlcial impropriaty between the organisation and the Vatican Bank.
The novel doesn't portray anything as fact. Like all other works of fiction, it contains a clear disclaimer that its entirety is fictional, even that which appears to coincide with reality - including the self-referential claim at the novel's beginning that some of it is fact - for anybody who can't figure it out for themselves.
The massive success and publicity of the work in addition to its apparent success in shaping public opinion around Opus Dei mean the organisation should have a simple job in proving that they have been harmed by the novel.
What would be the substance of their damage?
09 May 06
3 edits
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesJesus Christ, I was wrong.
I don't think blasphemy has been a crime or tort in the developed world for many, many years.
Take note, no1marauder:
http://mass.gov/legis/laws/mgl/272-36.htm
Chapter 272: Section 36. Blasphemy
Section 36. Whoever wilfully blasphemes the holy name of God by denying, cursing or contumeliously reproaching God, his creation, government or final judging of the world, or by cursing or contumeliously reproaching Jesus Christ or the Holy Ghost, or by cursing or contumeliously reproaching or exposing to contempt and ridicule, the holy word of God contained in the holy scriptures shall be punished by imprisonment in jail for not more than one year or by a fine of not more than three hundred dollars, and may also be bound to good behavior.
I don't see how any law prohibiting reproach of Jesus Christ or the Holy Ghost could possibly stand up to scrutiny under an Establishment Clause challenge.
09 May 06
4 edits
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesThere are still blasphemy laws on the books in some states, but they would not survive First Amendment challenge and are never enforced. However, in a previous thread someone from England (Siskin I believe) pointed out that the UK still has blasphemy laws and that there had been a recent case where someone was actually charged with this "crime". I don't remember the particulars. England's libel laws are an outrage and would never pass muster in the good ole USA at least until there's only Scalias and Thomases on the Supremes (and maybe not even then).
[b/]Jesus Christ, I was wrong.
Take note, no1marauder:
http://mass.gov/legis/laws/mgl/272-36.htm
Chapter 272: Section 36. Blasphemy
Section 36. Whoever wilfully blasphemes the holy name of God by denying, cursing or contumeliously reproaching God, his creation, government or final judging of the world, or by cursing or contumeliously[/ ...[text shortened]... or the Holy Ghost could possibly stand up to scrutiny under an Establishment Clause challenge.
EDIT: In Burstyn, Inc. v. Wilson, 343 US 495 (1952), the Supreme Court found unconstitutional a New York law allowing an injunction to stop a motion picture from being shown on the ground the authorities found the film to be "sacreligious". I presume this decision would be controlling in this matter in the US.
http://www.bc.edu/bc_org/avp/cas/comm/free_speech/burstyn.html
09 May 06
2 edits
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesSorry, i was merely offering suggestion as to what legal basis the Catholic Church or Opus Dei might object to Dan Browns work, and i apologise if i gave the impression that such an action would certainly be successful, merely that they could make a claim.
[b]From the reports I’ve seen, i think the Cardinal was thinking in terms of some kind of action on the grounds of blasphemy (his concern seems to be that Christian beliefs have been ridiculed). I have absolutely no idea what his chances of success are though…
I don't think blasphemy has been a crime or tort in the developed world for many, ma hat they have been harmed by the novel.[/b]
What would be the substance of their damage?[/b]
However, under UK libel law, the diclaimer allows an author to be protected from someone who claims libel on the grounds that they happen to share the name of one of the characters. I doubt (though i am not certain) this would protect Brown because hasn't just made up an organisation that 'coincidently' shares some of the publicised characteristics of Opus Dei.
As for the substance of their damage,the link provided explains that (assuming Browns portrayal is untrue):
A person is libelled if a publication
Exposes them to hatred, ridicule or contempt
Causes them to be shunned or avoided
Discredits them in their trade, business or profession
Generally lowers them in the eyes of right thinking members of society.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/actionnetwork/A1183394
Finally, UK libel law is notorious in that the burden of proof rests on the defendent. So, in this case Brown would have to PROVE that either what he wrote was true or that Opus Dei suffered no harm.
P.S. Yes, sigh, Britain still has Blasphemy laws. Though, oddly, only Jesus and his Dad are protected by them - perhaps Allah has thicker skin.
10 May 06
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesIsn't there a "facts" page somewhere at the beginning of the book that talks about the Priory of Sion, Opus Dei etc.?
The only people dense enough to have made such inferences, especially in light of the clear disclaimer on the copyright page that the entire work is a work of fiction, are people who don't believe the putatively factual assertions anyway.
Are the "facts" on the "facts" page also covered by the disclaimer?
10 May 06
Originally posted by lucifershammerYes, there is such a page, and it is a part of the work referred to in the disclaimer.
Isn't there a "facts" page somewhere at the beginning of the book that talks about the Priory of Sion, Opus Dei etc.?
Are the "facts" on the "facts" page also covered by the disclaimer?
10 May 06
Originally posted by lucifershammerThe Island of Dr. Moreau has a similar "factual" introduction before its first chapter. Do you believe the facts listed there, such as the disappearance of the Lady Vain on Feb. 1, 1887?
Because most readers would not consider a "FACTS" page at the beginning of a novel part of the novel itself and, therefore, not covered by the disclaimer.
10 May 06
Originally posted by lucifershammerAnd why does that matter?? Do you usually look for facts in a clearly labelled work of fiction? And whatever an author wishes to pass off as factual is his business.
Because it allows a potential author to pass off as factual something that is not and hide behind a small-print disclaimer.