Mimicking the Sacred: Advertising Parody, Religion and Freedom of Expression in the United States and France

Lyombe Eko
{"title":"Mimicking the Sacred: Advertising Parody, Religion and Freedom of Expression in the United States and France","authors":"Lyombe Eko","doi":"10.1080/10811680.2020.1735191","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"International controversies involving mass-mediated caricatures and parodies of religion provided an opportunity to compare and contrast how courts in the United States and France manage the tensions between advertising parody of religion, defamation, and freedom of expression. This article carried out a comparative analysis of the regulation of advertising parodies of religion under American and French law, using as a comparative case study two landmark cases, Hustler Magazine v. Falwell, and Association Croyances et Libértés v. Marithé et François Girbaud, decided by the Supreme Courts of the United States and France. Advertising parodies of religious icons are permissible under the copyright and free speech regimes of both countries. However, parody is not always a laughing matter. Although the legal systems of the United States and France are different in a number of respects, the outcomes of the legal disputes over advertising parodies of religion demonstrate a “similarity in difference” comparative model that explains the workings of both systems and is useful for promoting freedom of expression at the international level.","PeriodicalId":42622,"journal":{"name":"Communication Law and Policy","volume":"25 1","pages":"145 - 187"},"PeriodicalIF":0.2000,"publicationDate":"2020-04-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/10811680.2020.1735191","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Communication Law and Policy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10811680.2020.1735191","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

International controversies involving mass-mediated caricatures and parodies of religion provided an opportunity to compare and contrast how courts in the United States and France manage the tensions between advertising parody of religion, defamation, and freedom of expression. This article carried out a comparative analysis of the regulation of advertising parodies of religion under American and French law, using as a comparative case study two landmark cases, Hustler Magazine v. Falwell, and Association Croyances et Libértés v. Marithé et François Girbaud, decided by the Supreme Courts of the United States and France. Advertising parodies of religious icons are permissible under the copyright and free speech regimes of both countries. However, parody is not always a laughing matter. Although the legal systems of the United States and France are different in a number of respects, the outcomes of the legal disputes over advertising parodies of religion demonstrate a “similarity in difference” comparative model that explains the workings of both systems and is useful for promoting freedom of expression at the international level.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
模仿神圣:美国和法国的广告戏仿、宗教与言论自由
涉及大规模传播的讽刺和恶搞宗教的国际争议提供了一个比较和对比美国和法国法院如何处理广告恶搞宗教、诽谤和言论自由之间的紧张关系的机会。本文以美国和法国最高法院判决的两起具有里程碑意义的案件——《好色客杂志诉福尔韦尔案》和“协会Croyances et libsamrtsams诉marith et franois Girbaud”为案例,对美国和法国法律对宗教广告恶搞的监管进行了比较分析。在两国的版权和言论自由制度下,模仿宗教偶像的广告是允许的。然而,模仿并不总是一件好笑的事情。尽管美国和法国的法律制度在许多方面有所不同,但有关广告恶搞宗教的法律纠纷的结果显示出一种“差异中的相似”比较模式,这种模式解释了两种制度的运作方式,并有助于在国际层面上促进言论自由。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.60
自引率
33.30%
发文量
7
期刊介绍: The societal, cultural, economic and political dimensions of communication, including the freedoms of speech and press, are undergoing dramatic global changes. The convergence of the mass media, telecommunications, and computers has raised important questions reflected in analyses of modern communication law, policy, and regulation. Serving as a forum for discussions of these continuing and emerging questions, Communication Law and Policy considers traditional and contemporary problems of freedom of expression and dissemination, including theoretical, conceptual and methodological issues inherent in the special conditions presented by new media and information technologies.
期刊最新文献
Digital Rights in Europe After the Entry Into Force of Regulations for the Protection of Personal Data: Before and After the Right to Be Forgotten Regulatory Capture in a Transitional Democracy: Media Laws in the Kurdistan Region of Iraq Paranoid Androids: Free Speech Versus Privacy in America’s Resistance Against Intrusive Robocalls An Unreasonable Standard?: The Dilemma of Applying Actual Malice to Irrational Speakers “The Gloss of History”: A Historical Analysis of U.S. Supreme Court Justices’ Framing of First Amendment Press Rights to Cover and Access Court Proceedings
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1