Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorMcAllister, Stephen R.
dc.date.accessioned2013-07-16T18:09:18Z
dc.date.available2013-07-16T18:09:18Z
dc.date.issued2010
dc.identifier.citationStephen R. McAllister, Would Other Countries Protect the Phelpses’ Funeral Picketing?, 2010 CARDOZO L. REV. 409 (2010).
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/1808/11490
dc.descriptionFull-text available at SSRN. See link in this record.
dc.description.abstractThis 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.
dc.language.isoen_US
dc.publisherBenjamin N. Cardozo School of Law
dc.relation.hasversionhttp://ssrn.com/abstract=1944374
dc.titleWould Other Countries Protect the Phelpses’ Funeral Picketing?
dc.typeArticle
kusw.kuauthorMcAllister, Stephen R.
kusw.kudepartmentSchool of Law
kusw.oastatuswaivelicense
kusw.oapolicyThe license granted by the OA policy is waived for this item.
dc.rights.accessrightsopenAccess


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record