Free Speech Absolutism Does Not Exist: How Every Country Has Blasphemy Laws

 

Critics of Islam, and of theism in general, often enjoy attacking "Muslim countries" (I say this with quotation marks as I hold the position that unfortunately, no country fully implements Islamic law) for having "blasphemy laws." Blasphemy laws are statutes criminalising insults and contempt towards deities, sacred objects, and religious beliefs. Additionally, many antitheists and leftists like to taunt "insensitive" people for supposedly being "extremely sensitive" to blasphemy. However, I would like to point out that every society has blasphemy laws, and that free speech absolutism is impossible in practice.

No Right Is Absolute

Contrary to popular belief, constitutions (whether secular or otherwise) do not typically depict rights as unbounded, but rather, simply "protected," and even then, such rights (and therefore the degree of protecting them) are subject to interpretation. For example:

• Freedom of religion: One cannot forcefully apply their religious practices onto others. In my high school's twelfth-grade domestic and international law class, a hypothetical used to explain this to us was that if an imaginary religion said its adherents must kill and sacrifice other human beings to the imaginary religion's imaginary god(s), the legal system would obviously restrict such  practices.

• The right to own property: There are several restrictions to owning property, which many people hold to be a right. These include zoning laws, taxation, non-resident purchase bans in several countries, limiting the amount of force required to defend one's property, trespassing laws, easements, eminent domain, and obviously, even being able to purchase property in the first place.

• The right to bear arms: Gun control is a controversial issue in several countries. However, it is undeniable that even in many places where owning firearms is legal, several restrictions may be applied, such as who can own a firearm, who can sell a firearm, and what firearms can be owned.

• The right to bodily autonomy: Even this right, one of the rights most championed by "progressive, enlightened thinkers," has necessary restrictions. Restrictions may be due to public health and safety (e.g. face mask mandates during the COVID-19 pandemic in many countries), mental capacity and harm to self (e.g. age of consent laws), protection of others (although this often gets made fun of as "too libertarian"), and legal and judicial processes (e.g. physically restraining high-risk prisoners).

There Is No Neutrality in the "Marketplace of Ideas"

Several factors can contribute to some ideas being raised up and other ideas being pushed down. This can include wealth, social media algorithms, media ownership, social status, and governmental powers. For example, the Zionist business magnate Rupert Murdoch is notable for owning a huge range of Western media outlets which have been observed to push anti-Palestinian, anti-Arab, anti-Muslim, and anti-Islamic sentiments. Corporate platforms have become de facto speech regulators, which brings me to the fact that speech is not free when external powers only allow some to be heard. There is a good chance that pro-blasphemy activists will say this is as equally condemnable as blasphemy laws, but I am simply highlighting the fact that free speech absolutism is not a concept which can be practiced.

Secular Liberal Countries' Blasphemy Laws: When Does Speech Become a Weapon?

This section is the one I most anticipated writing about. As we covered earlier, blasphemy laws punish insulting religions, with the definition arguably being able to expand to banning insulting ideas in general. Western countries, which champion progressivism, individualism, and secularism, and constantly criticise some non-Western countries for criminalising blasphemy, arguably also criminalise blasphemy against their own ideas and values.

• American laws banning criticism of the "State of Israel:" The United States of America and the so-called State of Israel have had a long history of political friendliness. This has expanded to the American government on both the state level and the federal level passing laws potentially criminalising criticising and boycotting a foreign government recognised by the United Nations as committing an ongoing genocide and illegal occupation of land. (Source, Source, Source)
• Canadian activist arrested for X/Twitter posts criticising the "State of Israel:" Montreal-based Canadian writer Yves Engler has always been critical of Canadian foreign policy, particularly in Palestinian-"Israeli" relations, the Russian Federation's 2022 invasion of Ukraine, and the 2004 Haitian coup d'état. In February 2025, on the social networking platform X (formerly Twitter), Engler criticised user Dahlia Kurtz for pro-Israeli commentary on the Israeli-perpetrated genocide of Palestinians in the Gaza Strip. This usage of freedom of expression led to harassment charges, with Engler being forced to turn himself in and spend time in jail without proper explanation, all because he criticised a UN-recognised genocide online. (Source)
• Pro-life activists arrested for peaceful protests outside abortion clinics: 76-year-old Canadian grandmother Linda Gibbons and British woman Isabel Vaughan-Spruce are both women who have protested terminating pregnancies outside of abortion facilities in peaceful, silent methods of prayer, with Gibbons having spent a total of 11 years for various pro-life protests and Vaughan-Spruce being arrested over a year ago for simply standing and praying. (Source, Source)
• Activists arrested for protesting for and against LGBTQ+ rights: I thought this was noteworthy to include, as not only do Western progressives constantly criticise anyone not supporting LGBTQ+ identities, but their governments actually arrest both pro-LGBTQ+ and anti-LGBTQ+ activists. Although arrests are oftentimes made due to legitimate violence breaking out at such activists' protests, they are sometimes also made for more trivial reasons. (Source, Source)

As I was talking to my friend KenZ on the concept for this blog, they said it is true that every country arguably has blasphemy laws, as things would turn chaotic if you let everyone say whatever they want to say, with KenZ citing the infamously politically extreme nature of the imageboard 4chan. I will expand this to arguing that the same would happen if you go around denigrating religious beliefs (particularly in a society where those beliefs are dominant), especially since to many people, religious beliefs are the most important aspect of one's life (rebutting antitheists who make fun of "edgy" people not tolerating blasphemy), and therefore, they would not react lightly to such acts. This also ties in to the excuse Western governments hold for restricting certain opinions, which is that speech can be weaponised and lead to legitimate violent; in that case, punishments for insulting such political ideals are really no different than punishments for insulting theological ideals, even if such restrictions may be "necessary."

Conclusion

At the end of the day, free speech absolutism remains impossible in practice, and the definition of freedom of expression remains a subjective matter. There were more things I wanted to touch upon, such as how unlimited speech is not true, how societies restrict speech around minors (e.g. telling them not to use vulgar language), the impossibility to neutral enforcement, how absolute tolerance leads to the collapse of tolerance, and how freedom of expression does not necessitate freedom from consequences, but I do not wish to write a whole book on this subject matter.