The First Amendment in Cross-Cultural Perspective: A Comparative 
Legal Analysis of the Freedom of Speech

Yalof, David A.

doi:10.1017/s1537592707070387

Cited by 3 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…It may be tempting to read the spread of the concept of public figure as an example of the advancement of the international norm or constitutional right of freedom of expression. Under international law and in western democracies such as the United States, the United Kingdom, and Germany, in libel cases personal reputation is balanced against freedom of expression (Krotoszynski ). Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights protects the right to freedom of expression, but expressly allows that right to be restricted if necessary to respect an individual's reputation (Boyle ).…”

Section: Diffusion Of a Legal Conceptmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Diffusion of the Concept of Public Figure in China

Yi¹,

Richards²

2019

Law Soc Rev

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article considers how and why the legal concept of public figure, which holds public figures to a higher standard that makes it more difficult for them to recover damages when suing for libel, has been diffused in China. The public figure concept developed in the U.S. context as an extension of New York Times v. Sullivan from public officials to public figures, reflecting the deeply embedded value of freedom of expression. Despite authoritarianism in China, the concept was adapted in the rulings of some local courts to define the limits of the right to reputation. The diffusion was a response to a stream of litigation against media organizations. In the process of diffusion and adaptation, courts have acted strategically to reshape the public figure concept and refashion its justifications. Given the political constraints on courts in authoritarian China, they have been careful to avoid applying the concept to public officials, and instead have applied the concept to public figures such as celebrities. The diffusion of the concept in China sheds light on theories of legal diffusion more broadly, by illustrating how the process of diffusion can be bottom‐up and open‐ended, and how it can occur even in a counter‐intuitive case in which there are significant political and ideational differences between the two countries.

show abstract

Section: Diffusion Of a Legal Conceptmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Diffusion of the Concept of Public Figure in China

Yi¹,

Richards²

2019

Law Soc Rev

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Al Gore was part of the group which met with Clinton regarding his nominations. 269 Sixth, non-governmental groups have assumed an increased role in the process. The American Bar Association has evaluated most nominees since 1954.…”

Section: VImentioning

confidence: 99%

Choosing Justices: How Presidents Decide

Goldstein

2011

SSRN Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Law. An earlier version of this paper was presented as part of a panel discussion on selection of federal judges at the Southeastern Association of Law Schools annual meeting on August 7, 2009. I benefited from the discussion by my fellow panelists Bill Marshall and Ron Rotunda and by those in attendance. I am grateful to Mark Killenbeck and Brad Snyder for very helpful comments on a more recent draft and to Stacy Osmond for research assistance. Choosing Justices: How Presidents Decide Presidents of the United States play the critical role in determining who serves on the Supreme Court. Although the Constitution subjects these presidential nominations to the advice and consent process, the Senate's role, though important, is reactive and secondary. Only the president can nominate and that power confers a huge advantage in composing the Court. 1 Presidential nominees to the Court almost always win confirmation. Since 1900, about 87% of those selected as nominees for the Court were confirmed. 2 This high rate of presidential success does not mean that a president has carte blanche in choosing a nominee. As will be shown below, the success rate traces in part to presidential skill in choosing confirmable candidates. Nonetheless, the figures confirm that the Court's composition correlates closely to decisions presidents make regarding who to nominate. The impact of those presidential decisions reverberates for generations. Those chosen generally remain on the Court well beyond the term (and often the life) of their benefactor. Justices William Brennan and Byron "Whizzer" White, for instance, served during the tenures of eight presidents; Justice (and Chief Justice) William Rehnquist overlapped seven. These two factors, the president's dominance of Supreme Court selection and the lengthy service of those he chooses, interact with a third variable to compound the significance of the subject. The Court's position atop the judicial hierarchy affords its nine members extraordinary

show abstract

“…In many countries, including the UK, Canada, and Germany, laws have been established to regulate and penalize hate speech, but their legislative contents vary considerably in what sort of act against whom should be regulated as well as the severity of applicable criminal sanctions. 2 In the USA, there is no equivalent law, as free speech is most ardently protected by the First Amendment to the US Constitution with courts only allowing for so-called 'content-neutral' restrictions (Stone, 1987); this regulatory absence is often described as 'exceptionalism' (Krotoszynski, 2006) or 'American way' (Rosenfeld, 2003) in constitutional approaches to hate speech. 3 Given the enduring disagreement and observed variety, it must be tempting for scholars to drift away from a quest for a uniform theory on hate speech regulations.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A survey inquiry into behavioral foundations of hate speech regulations: evidence from Japan

Hirose

Kim

Kohno

2023

Japanese Journal of Political Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper highlights the concept of dignity as the cornerstone that justifies hate speech regulations in democratic societies. In political theory and constitutional law, the primacy of dignity as the moral and legislative justification for regulating hate speech has already been addressed by dignitarianism, especially in the course of debate with free speech advocates. We aim to augment this important claim in the normative literature with empirical data. Specifically, based on our survey conducted in Japan, where its first national anti-hate speech law had only recently been enacted and ordinary citizens were thus less predisposed of the debate, we show that citizens' concerns about the dignity of a targeted victim lead them to support regulations. Our analysis further clarifies the possible mechanisms of the dignitarian rationale, revealing not only the people's public-centered expectation regarding the societal consequences of hate speech, which dignitarians emphasized, but also the importance of more individual-based judgments regarding morality and justice, in shaping their regulatory attitudes.

show abstract

The First Amendment in Cross-Cultural Perspective: A Comparative Legal Analysis of the Freedom of Speech

Cited by 3 publications

References 0 publications

The Diffusion of the Concept of Public Figure in China

The Diffusion of the Concept of Public Figure in China

Choosing Justices: How Presidents Decide

A survey inquiry into behavioral foundations of hate speech regulations: evidence from Japan

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About