Another Reason To Be Skeptical of International Influence in U.S. Constitutional Law:

Consider this account in the Times of London:

Supermodels have fallen foul of France’s blasphemy laws with an advertising campaign that parodies Leonardo da Vinci’s painting, The Last Supper.

A judge ordered the advertising posters to be removed yesterday from billboards across France within three days or risk a daily fine of €100,000 (£70,000)….

The campaign, which was also banned by magistrates in Milan in February, was described as offensive to Catholics by the presiding judge, Jean-Claude Magendie.

Thierry Massis, the [plaintiff] bishops’ lawyer, said: “When you attack sacred things, you create a moral violence that is dangerous for our children. Tomorrow we’ll have Christ selling socks….

In recent years bishops have taken legal action over a poster for the film Amen, which showed a Christian cross that merged into Nazi swastikas, and over an advertising campaign for Volkswagen, which showed Jesus saying: “Rejoice, for a new Golf is born.” Both cases were settled out of court.

Here’s the painting:

Here’s what appears to be the offending ad:

If this were the only incident in which European courts suppressed speech that I think should be protected, I wouldn’t be that troubled — but it seems to me to be part of a considerably broader pattern in which various ideas and expressions can be and are banned because they’re offensive, whether based on race, sexual orientation, and religion.

I’d hate to see this pattern imported into U.S. law. And unfortunately, as some pro-internationalist scholars acknowledge, the more attention U.S. courts to pay to foreign legal norms, the more likely it is that those norms will eventually be used to narrow U.S. constitutional rights as well as to expand them.

Thanks to reader John Griffin for the pointer.