Abstract

http://ssrn.com/abstract=1944374
 


 



Would Other Countries Protect the Phelpses’ Funeral Picketing?


Stephen R. McAllister


University of Kansas - School of Law

May 1, 2010

Cardozo Law Review, Vol. 2010, p. 409, 2010

Abstract:     
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.

Number of Pages in PDF File: 10

Accepted Paper Series





Download This Paper

Date posted: October 16, 2011  

Suggested Citation

McAllister, Stephen R., Would Other Countries Protect the Phelpses’ Funeral Picketing? (May 1, 2010). Cardozo Law Review, Vol. 2010, p. 409, 2010. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1944374

Contact Information

Stephen R. McAllister (Contact Author)
University of Kansas - School of Law ( email )
Green Hall
1535 W. 15th Street
Lawrence, KS 66045-7577
United States
Feedback to SSRN


Paper statistics
Abstract Views: 167
Downloads: 36

© 2014 Social Science Electronic Publishing, Inc. All Rights Reserved.  FAQ   Terms of Use   Privacy Policy   Copyright   Contact Us
This page was processed by apollo2 in 0.250 seconds