The First Amendment Doesn't Apply To Satanists

The interpretation of the First Amendment has consistently excluded the protection of blasphemous speech. This distinction is crucial in the context of recent incidents involving overt displays of satanism in several statehouses across the United States. Such manifestations are antithetical to the principles espoused by the founding fathers of the nation, and by extension, should be equally indefensible in contemporary society. Satanism, as it is currently exhibited, represents a form of blasphemy that not only offends other religious beliefs but also exalts hedonism and denies the existence of absolute moral truths and values.

A closer examination of pre-Constitutional blasphemy laws in America, as detailed in sources such as Wikipedia, reveals an often-overlooked historical context. The framers of the Constitution were acutely aware that the right to free speech did not extend to the denigration of other religions, paralleling the limitations on rights to threaten or harass individuals.

This rationale aligns with the Supreme Court's approach in recent Second Amendment cases, particularly the Bruen and Heller decisions. In these judgments, the Court established that the historical context and legal traditions of the colonial period are instrumental in interpreting the Second Amendment. By extension, this method of interpretation logically applies to the First Amendment as well.

Justice Thomas, in discussing the constitutionality of modern gun legislation, articulated the principle of 'analogical reasoning.' He stated, "Analogical reasoning requires only that the government identify a well-established and representative historical analogue, not a historical twin." This implies that for a modern regulation to be constitutionally valid, it need not be identical to historical laws, but must be sufficiently analogous. Thus, for the enactment of new gun regulations, a parallel law from the constitutional era must be identified. Similarly, the historical presence of anti-blasphemy laws demonstrates that the founding fathers regarded blasphemy as a specific form of harassment outside the protective ambit of the First Amendment.

---

Blasphemy laws:

Massachusetts
For example, Chapter 272 of the Massachusetts General Laws – a provision based on a similar colonial-era Massachusetts Bay statute enacted in 1697 – states:

Section 36. Whoever willfully blasphemes the holy name of God by denying, cursing or contumeliously reproaching God, His creation, government or final judging of the world, or by cursing or contumeliously reproaching Jesus Christ or the Holy Ghost, or by cursing or contumeliously reproaching or exposing to contempt and ridicule, the holy word of God contained in the holy scriptures shall be punished by imprisonment in jail for not more than one year or by a fine of not more than three hundred dollars, and may also be bound to good behavior.

Maryland
The history of Maryland's blasphemy statutes suggests that even into the 1930s, the First Amendment was not recognized as preventing states from passing such laws. An 1879 codification of Maryland statutes prohibited blasphemy:

Art. 72, sec. 189. If any person, by writing or speaking, shall blaspheme or curse God, or shall write or utter any profane words of and concerning our Saviour, Jesus Christ, or of and concerning the Trinity, or any of the persons thereof, he shall, on conviction, be fined not more than one hundred dollars, or imprisoned not more than six months, or both fined and imprisoned as aforesaid, at the discretion of the court.

According to the marginalia, this statute was adopted in 1819, and a similar law dates back to 1723. In 1904, the statute was still on the books at Art. 27, sec. 20, unaltered in text. As late as 1939, this statute was still the law of Maryland. But in 1972, in Maryland v. Irving K. West, the Maryland Court of Appeals (the state's highest court) declared the blasphemy law unconstitutional.[3] This law was still on the books until at least 2003.[4]

Maine
Maine's law reads as follows:

Blasphemy may be committed either by using profanely insolent and reproachful language against God, or by contumeliously reproaching Him, His creation, government, final judgment of the world, Jesus Christ, the Holy Ghost, or the Holy Scriptures as contained in the canonical books of the Old and New Testament, or by exposing any of these enumerated Beings or Scriptures to contempt and ridicule, and it is not necessary for the state to prove the doing of all of them.[5]

Michigan
Michigan's law reads as follows:

750.102 Blasphemy; punishment.

Sec. 102.

Punishment—Any person who shall wilfully blaspheme the holy name of God, by cursing or contumeliously reproaching God, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.

History: 1931, Act 328, Eff. Sept. 18, 1931 ;-- CL 1948, 750.102 Former Law: See section 17 of Ch. 158 of R.S. 1846, being CL 1857, § 5872; CL 1871, § 7707; How., § 9293; CL 1897, § 11706; CL 1915, § 15480; and CL 1929, § 16832.[6]

Secondarily, there is an "anti-profanity" law, which includes "blasphemy" elements, and reads as follows.

750.103 Cursing and swearing.

Sec. 103.

Cursing and swearing—Any person who has arrived at the age of discretion, who shall profanely curse or damn or swear by the name of God, Jesus Christ or the Holy Ghost, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor. No such prosecution shall be sustained unless it shall be commenced within 5 days after the commission of such offense.

History: 1931, Act 328, Eff. Sept. 18, 1931 ;-- CL 1948, 750.103 Former Law: See section 18 of Ch. 158 of R.S. 1846, being CL 1857, § 5873; CL 1871, § 7708; How., § 9294; CL 1897, § 11707; CL 1915, § 15481; and CL 1929, § 16833.[7]