## Facts

- Pennsylvania had a 1700 statute criminalizing willful, premeditated, and despiteful blasphemy concerning God, Jesus Christ, the Holy Spirit, or the Scriptures.
- Abner Updegraph was indicted for statements made before several persons asserting that the Holy Scriptures were “a mere fable,” “a contradiction,” and contained “a great many lies,” allegedly intended to vilify Christianity.
- Updegraph claimed the remarks occurred in the setting of a private debating association that met for discussion and mutual instruction.
- The jury found that Updegraph spoke words of that substance with malicious intent to vilify Christianity and the Scriptures, and he was convicted and fined under the statute.
- Updegraph sought appellate review, arguing the conviction violated protections of religious liberty and that Christianity was not part of Pennsylvania law.

## Issues

1. Whether “general Christianity” is part of the common law of Pennsylvania such that blasphemous attacks on Christianity may be prosecuted.
2. Whether the 1700 blasphemy statute is consistent with constitutional protections for liberty of conscience and worship.
3. Whether speech made in a debating-society context is protected, or may be punished as blasphemy tending to disturb public peace and offend public morals.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania affirmed the conviction.
- The court held that “general Christianity,” not any sect or established church, is part of Pennsylvania common law.
- The court upheld the constitutionality of the 1700 statute as applied, construing it to reach only willful, premeditated, and malicious vilification rather than sincere religious disagreement.
- The court treated the jury’s finding of malicious intent as controlling and declined to reframe the statements as protected debate.
- The court further reasoned that even apart from the “common law Christianity” rationale, insulting the popular religion in a Christian community could be punished as tending to a breach of the peace and offending good morals.

## Legal Principles

- A state may criminally punish blasphemy when defined as willful, premeditated, and despiteful speech aimed at maliciously vilifying Christianity and the Scriptures.
- “General Christianity” may be treated as part of a jurisdiction’s common law while still recognizing liberty of conscience and rejecting any established church or sect preference.
- Constitutional protections for conscience do not bar punishment of speech found by a jury to be malicious invective rather than reasoned, conscientious religious discussion.
- Speech may be deemed indictable when characterized as an offense against good morals and as conduct with a tendency to disturb public peace in the community where uttered.
- On appellate review limited to the record, a jury’s finding of malicious intent forecloses factual recasting of the defendant’s purpose as innocent discussion.

## Conclusion

The court affirmed a blasphemy conviction under Pennsylvania’s 1700 statute, holding that “general Christianity” formed part of state common law and that punishing malicious vilification of Christianity and the Scriptures was compatible with liberty of conscience because the law targeted intentional, public affronts to morals and public peace rather than sincere religious dissent.


Updegraph v. Commonwealth, 11 Serg. & Rawle 394 (Pa. 1824)