2015年经济学人 宗教与自由言论 粗鲁的权利

（单词翻译）

Religion and free speech

The right to be rude

An offensive preacher acquires some unlikely allies

MICHAEL OVERD is an evangelical Christian¹ with strong views on the sinfulness of homosexuality and the wrongness of Islam

(except, presumably, on the issue of homosexuality). He likes to hold forth² among the shoppers of Taunton, a quiet town in south-west England.

But on March 23rd Mr Overd was found guilty of using threatening or abusive language—

although a more serious charge of causing “religiously aggravated” offence was rejected.

The judge, Shamim Qureshi, ordered him to pay ￡250 ($375) in compensation to a man who said he was left feeling “ashamed and belittled” by the preacher's stance on same-sex relations.

When Mr Overd objected to “paying 250 to a sodomite” the judge threatened him with 45 days in prison.

The preacher then agreed to pay compensation but said he would appeal.

“I find it quite incredible that a Muslim judge finds a Christian guilty and wants to protect homosexuals, whom I have no personal hatred³ against,” he declared on leaving the courtroom.

The evangelist has acquired some unlikely defenders⁴. The National Secular⁵ Society (NSS),

which fights religious privilege of all kinds, says the case vindicates⁶ its long-running campaign to safeguard free speech from sloppy⁷ legislation.

Mr Overd was prosecuted⁸ under the Public Order Act, which outlaws⁹ “threatening, insulting or abusive” language and can result in prison sentences of up to seven years if the offence is deemed to be racially or religiously motivated.

Thanks to a campaign by the NSS and others, the law has been amended¹⁰ so that insulting language no longer incurs¹¹ prosecution¹² merely because the police think it has the potential to offend.

It must be shown that an insult was directed at a particular person or group, and that offence was taken.

But civil libertarians want the law further amended to protect insulting speech and take away the reference to religious aggravation¹³.

Although Britain has abolished its ancient ban on blasphemy¹⁴, which punished insults against Christianity,

the concept of religious aggravation amounts to a new sort of blasphemy law that could be used to prevent criticism of any religion,

argues Keith Porteous Wood, executive director of the NSS.

One of Britain's best known gay-rights campaigners, Peter Tatchell, has offered to speak in court in favour of the preacher's right to hold forth.

He thinks that Mr Overd's views are bigoted¹⁵ and would protest against them. But being spared offence is not a human right, he says:

“In a free, democratic society, the criminalisation of unpleasant opinions is a step too far.”