Regina v Metropolitan Magistrate ex parte Choudhury [1991] 1 All ER 306
Judgement for the case Regina v Metropolitan Magistrate ex parte Choudhury
Table Of Contents
Someone accused Salman Rushdie of blasphemous libel.
The divisional court dismissed the claim on the grounds that blasphemous libel was only available against those who “vilified the Christian religion”, which the Satanic Verses didn’t do. They also said that Articles 9 and 14 did not require the crime to be extended to all religions.
-
The court says that the book has not prevented Muslims from practicing their religion, while Article 14 (non-discrimination) has been interfered with on reasonable grounds, in that to extend the offence of blasphemous libel would lead to great incursions into free speech.
Because of its not requiring intentional offence, in reality it would lead to all criticism of religion which people find offensive being banned.
For Further Study on Regina v Metropolitan Magistrate ex parte Choudhury
Need instant answers? Our AI exam tutor is here to help.
Ask questions 🙋 Get answers 📔 It's simple 👁️👄👁️
Our AI is educated by the highest scoring students across all subjects and schools. Join hundreds of your peers today.
Get StartedSimilar Cases
Related Product Samples
These product samples contain the same concepts we cover in this case.
Constitutional Law notes fully updated for recent exams at Oxford and C...
Since 2010, Oxbridge Notes has been a trusted education marketplace, supplying high-quality materials from top achievers at universities like Oxford, Cambridge, LSE, Harvard, and Yale.