Page 72 - Law and the Media

Blasphemy, Seditious Libel and Criminal Libel
The offence potentially arises where a statement vilifies or denies the truth of the Christian
religion. However, for the statement to constitute a blasphemous libel, it must also be
crouched in indecent, scurrilous or offensive terms that are likely to shock and outrage the
feelings of Christian believers (Whitehouse v Gay News and Lemon (1979)). In other words,
it must be a religiously charged incitement for a breach of the peace. In 1917, the House of
Lords held in Bowman v Secular Society that such a statement must ‘endanger the peace . . .
deprave public morality generally . . . shake the fabric of society . . . and to be a cause of civil
strife’. These are clearly difficult requirements to fulfil.

It is clear that the manner and the context of the statement is as important as its content in
assessing whether the law against blasphemy has been contravened. A responsible debate or
an honest and serious publication in which attacks are made upon Christian beliefs will not
constitute the offence.

Leave must be sought from a judge in chambers before a prosecution for blasphemy may be
commenced against a newspaper.

2.2.2 The mental element

Once such a statement has been made, the required mental element of the offence is
elementary. The offence of blasphemous libel requires only the mere intention to publish the
statement. The publisher of the statement does not need to have known that he has published
a blasphemous statement (see Whitehouse v Gay News and Lemon)). It is therefore irrelevant
whether he intended the text to be, or to be seen as, blasphemous. Once the fact of
publication by the accused is proved, the jury need only consider the meaning and effect of
the words.

2.2.3 Penalties

The convicted publisher of a blasphemous libel faces a maximum penalty of a fine or life
imprisonment and a fine.

2.2.4 Recent prosecutions

The only successful prosecution for blasphemous libel since 1922 was Whitehouse v Gay
News and Lemon. The prosecution contended that the magazine and its editor ‘unlawfully
and wickedly published . . . a blasphemous libel concerning the Christian religion, namely an
obscene poem and illustration vilifying Christ in His Life and His Crucifixion’. The poem,
written by James Kirkup, contained explicit references to Christ having engaged in
homosexual acts with a number of men. It was intended, according to the defendants, to be
serious expression of the all-encompassing nature of God’s love. The jury found by a
35