Minority Rights, Governing Regimes, or Secular Elites: Who Benefits from the Protection of Religious and Anti-Religious Speech by the U.S. Supreme Court and European Court of Human Rights?

IF 0.8 Q2 LAW Journal of Law and Courts Pub Date : 2022-12-13 DOI:10.1017/jlc.2022.11
Nathaniel T. W. Carrington, Thomas M. Keck, Claire Sigsworth
{"title":"Minority Rights, Governing Regimes, or Secular Elites: Who Benefits from the Protection of Religious and Anti-Religious Speech by the U.S. Supreme Court and European Court of Human Rights?","authors":"Nathaniel T. W. Carrington, Thomas M. Keck, Claire Sigsworth","doi":"10.1017/jlc.2022.11","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n This paper draws on new data regarding judicial decisions involving religious and anti-religious expression to map the political beneficiaries of judicial empowerment. In particular, the paper assesses the extent to which free-expression decisions issued by the U.S. Supreme Court and European Court of Human Rights have favored claimants who are religious majorities, religious minorities, or secular elites. We find the U.S. doctrine relatively more libertarian and the European Court of Human Rights doctrine relatively more secularist, but both bodies of case law extend regular and substantial rights protection to religious minorities.","PeriodicalId":44478,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Law and Courts","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.8000,"publicationDate":"2022-12-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Law and Courts","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/jlc.2022.11","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

This paper draws on new data regarding judicial decisions involving religious and anti-religious expression to map the political beneficiaries of judicial empowerment. In particular, the paper assesses the extent to which free-expression decisions issued by the U.S. Supreme Court and European Court of Human Rights have favored claimants who are religious majorities, religious minorities, or secular elites. We find the U.S. doctrine relatively more libertarian and the European Court of Human Rights doctrine relatively more secularist, but both bodies of case law extend regular and substantial rights protection to religious minorities.
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
少数人权利,执政政权,还是世俗精英:谁从美国最高法院和欧洲人权法院对宗教和反宗教言论的保护中受益?
本文利用涉及宗教和反宗教言论的司法判决的新数据,绘制司法赋权的政治受益者。特别是,该文件评估了美国最高法院和欧洲人权法院发布的言论自由裁决在多大程度上有利于宗教多数派、宗教少数派或世俗精英。我们发现,美国的学说相对更自由主义,欧洲人权法院的学说相对更有世俗主义,但这两个判例法都将定期和实质性的权利保护扩大到宗教少数群体。
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
2.00
自引率
0.00%
发文量
16
期刊最新文献
CompLaw: A Coding Protocol and Database for the Comparative Study of Judicial Review Lacking Legislative Experience: The Impact of Changing Justice Backgrounds on Judicial Review African Americans’ Willingness to Extend Legitimacy to the Police: Connections to Identities and Experiences in the Post-George Floyd Era Are Judges on Per Curiam Courts Ideological? Evidence from the European Court of Justice Diffuse Support, Partisanship, and the Electoral Relevance of the Supreme Court
×
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