Forum attacks rights in First Amendment

As a member of the Penn State Catholic community, I feel compelled to publicly respond to the Rev. Leo Arnone's indefensible assault on Americans' First Amendment freedoms in his forum (Jan. 31).

I was deeply disturbed to read such assertions from one of my spiritual leaders, and I wish it be known that not all Catholic students agree with Arnone.

Although it is difficult to know where to begin to respond to the flaws in his article, I will begin with his statement that the First Amendment does not imply the "freedom from religion."

In recent years, the Supreme Court has been very clear on this matter, stating in Wallace vs. Jaffree (1985) for example: "Just as the right to speak and the right to refrain from speaking are complementary components of a broader concept of individual freedom of mind, so also the individual's freedom to choose his own creed is the counterpart of his right to refrain from accepting the creed established by the majority."

Justice Stevens then continues by citing other cases in which the Court has upheld the right of individuals to be free from religious practice, stating: " . . . the Court has unambiguously concluded that the individual freedom of conscience protected by the First Amendment embraces the right to select any religious faith or none at all."

It is quite clear from the above citation that, contrary to Arnone's belief, the First Amendment's protection of religion does indeed shelter those who choose not to practice any religion.

Arnone advocates the infringement of the freedom of speech as well as the freedom of religion in his article when he suggests that Christine Enedy's artwork should be banned by the government as a "defamation" of the Catholic faith.

He constructs his argument by first citing well-established exceptions tot he constitutional "rule" of freedom of speech, including the "clear and present danger" and "fighting words" doctrines.

Although it is true that the Supreme Court has long accepted the need for "time, place and manner" restrictions on the freedom of speech, it has vigorously denied the validity of restrictions on the content of that speech. However, this is what Arnone is championing when he asserts that the government shouldn't " . . . permit . . . a particular denomination to be desecrated and defamed in the name of freedom of speech under the guise of art."

Apparently, he wants the state to pass judgment on art and literature, allowing only "inoffensive" sculptures, paintings and writings to be viewed by the public. As repulsive as the sight of a swastika superimposed on the Torah, a gun's crosshairs painted on a picture of Martin Luther King Jr.'s face or a sculpture of the Virgin Mary emerging from a bloody vagina may be for many members of the community, all of these items are forms of speech protected by the First Amendment.

The case for safeguarding unpopular speech is summed up well by Justice Robert Jackson, who wrote in Board of Education v. Barnette (1943) that: "If there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion or other matters of opinion . . . "

In addition, Arnone utilizes a tortured definition of the term "defamation" when he asserts that Enedy's sculpture defames Catholicism. The Webster's Encyclopedic Unabridged Dictionary definition of "defamation" states that it is the "false or unjustified injury of the good reputation of another, as by slander or libel."

It is extremely difficult to understand how Enedy has done so, as no facts concerning Catholicism were presented in her artwork.

A proper example of defamation would be if she had stated as the truth that Catholics were hiding guns in church basements in preparation for a revolution to install the Pope as president.

It is apparent that Enedy has some concerns about the Catholic Church's treatment of women, and it is likely that many Catholics would find her way of expressing these views sacrilegious. However, this presentation of her opinions does not constitute defamation by any stretch of the imagination.

Finally, Arnone utilizes a faulty analogy when he alleges that protecting minors from pornography is the same as protecting adult Catholics from defamation. He avers that since the government has laws against corrupting a minor by showing one pornography, this opens the door to further restrictions on artistic expression.

Aside from once again confusing the difference between time, place, manner and content restrictions, he ignores the fact that minors are afforded special protection under the law because they are assumed to lack the ability to know what is in their best interest.

Essentially, what Arnone is asserting is that the same legal standards that apply to children should also be applied to adults with respect to what members of each group can view. This standard is particularly unconstitutional, as the members of the U.S. District Court of Philadelphia unanimously declared last fall when they nullified the Communications Decency Act.

In conclusion, Arnone should not be so quick to advocate the abridgment of other people's First Amendment rights, the very ones that allow him to pursue his vocation as a Catholic priest.

Craig Ortsey
graduate-political science

U.S. Constitution does not allow 'group libel'

To my surprise, I saw in the Jan. 31 Collegian a forum by the Rev. Leo F. Arnone asserting that "All denominations, including Catholics, have a Constitutional right to demand policies and law to protect them from defamation."

This assertion is quite contrary to the long-established legal principles of the United States.

Even a quick glance at lawbooks will show that only persons specifically identified may sue for defamation; our laws contain no such things as "group libel."

In the United States, intellectual, political and religious beliefs can be freely discussed, defended and attacked.

I for one am proud to live in a country where the government has no power to tell us which ideas we must respect.

William C. Waterhouse
professor of mathematics