MASSACHUSETTS
SUPREME COURT
(1838), heard the case of Commonwealth v. Abner Kneeland, 37 Mass. (20 Pick) 206, 216–217 1838, which involved a Universalist who claimed the right of “freedom of the press” as a defense for publishing libelous and defamatory remarks about Christianity and God. The Court delivered its decision, stating that “freedom of press” was not a license to print without restraint, otherwise:
According to the argument … every act, however injurious or criminal, which can be committed by the use of language may be committed … if such language is printed.
Not only therefore would the article in question become a general license for scandal, calumny and falsehood against individuals, institutions and governments, in the form of publication … but all incitation to treason, assassination, and all other crimes however atrocious, if conveyed in printed language, would be dispunishable.2799
The statute, on which the question arises, is as follows:
“That if any person shall willfully blaspheme the holy name of God, by denying, cursing, or contumeliously reproaching God, his creation, government, or final judging of the world,” &. …
In general, blasphemy [libel against God] may be described, as consisting in speaking evil of the Deity … to alienate the minds of others from the love and reverence of God. It is purposely using words concerning God … to impair and destroy the reverence, respect, and confidence due him. …
It is a wilful and malicious attempt to lessen men’s reverence of God by denying his existence, of his attributes as an intelligent creator, governor and judge of men, and to prevent their having confidence in him. …
But another ground for arresting the judgement, and one apparently most relied on and urged by the defendant, is, that this statute itself is repugnant to the constitution … and therefore wholly void. …
[This law] was passed very soon after the adoption of the constitution, and no doubt, many members of the convention which framed the constitution, were members of the legislature which passed this law. …
In New Hampshire, the constitution of which State has a similar declaration of [religious] rights, the open denial of the being and existence of God or of the Supreme Being is prohibited by statute, and declared to be blasphemy.
In Vermont, with a similar declaration of rights, a statute was passed in 1797, by which it was enacted, that if any person shall publicly deny the being and existence of God or the Supreme Being, or shall contumeliously reproach his providence and government, he shall be deemed a disturber of the peace and tranquility of the State, and an offender against the good morals and manners of society, and shall be punishable by fine. …
The State of Maine also, having adopted the same constitutional provision with that of Massachusetts, in her declaration of rights, in respect to religious freedom, immediately after the adoption of the constitution reenacted, the Massachusetts statue against blasphemy. …
In New York the universal toleration of all religious professions and sentiments, is secured in the most ample manner. It is declared in the constitution … that the free exercise and enjoyment of religious worship, without discrimination or preference, shall for ever be allowed in this State to all mankind. …
Notwithstanding this constitutional declaration carrying the doctrine of unlimited toleration as far as the peace and safety of any community will allow, the courts have decided that blasphemy was a crime at common law and was not abrogated by the constitution [People v. Ruggles].2800
[The First Amendment] embraces all who believe in the existence of God, as well … as Christians of every denomination. … This provision does not extend to atheists, because they do not believe in God or religion; and therefore … their sentiments and professions, whatever they may be, cannot be called religious sentiments and professions.2801