Would Other Countries Protect the Phelpses’ Funeral Picketing?
Issue Date
2010Author
McAllister, Stephen R.
Publisher
Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law
Type
Article
Version
http://ssrn.com/abstract=1944374
Metadata
Show full item recordAbstract
This essay makes four comparative observations regarding the issues raised in Snyder v. Phelps. These observations are derived from the author’s experience teaching comparative freedom of speech and privacy principles in summer study abroad programs. In particular, the four observations are as follows: (1) many countries recognize individual privacy as a right of co-equal stature with freedom of speech; (2) the courts of many countries explicitly balance competing privacy and free speech interests when there is a conflict between the two; (3) many countries provide greater protection of individual privacy and reputational interests than the Supreme Court recognizes under First Amendment doctrine; and (4) many countries regulate or even criminalize hateful speech.
Description
Full-text available at SSRN. See link in this record.
Collections
Citation
Stephen R. McAllister, Would Other Countries Protect the Phelpses’ Funeral Picketing?, 2010 CARDOZO L. REV. 409 (2010).
Items in KU ScholarWorks are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.
We want to hear from you! Please share your stories about how Open Access to this item benefits YOU.