For a variety of historical, cultural and political reasons, the Islamic headscarf has become an increasingly controversial matter in Europe. This is particularly the case in France, where the Parliament passed, in March 2004, a piece of legislation that prohibits students from wearing the Muslim veil—together with any other ‘conspicuous’ religious sign—in the classroom. Although Statute 228/2004 proved highly controversial and attracted unprecedented media attention, it was overwhelmingly supported by French MPs as a response to popular opposition towards religious insignia at school and was heralded as a ‘liberating’ piece of legislation that faithfully reasserted the beloved French principle of laïcité. Overseas, the new law was less favourably perceived and was often accused of being discriminatory and of violating the students’ freedom of religious expression. This thesis compares the French and American attitudes towards religious symbolism in general and the Islamic veil in particular. As in other matters, at first sight these two countries seem to adopt a very different—if not opposite—approach to religion and the Muslim veil, and so much so that their positions are often described as ‘irreconcilable’. This thesis will argue that this is hardly the case. Indeed, it will show that, at least before the passage of Statute 228-2004, the French and American legal systems adopted a substantially similar approach that appeared respectful of a veiled student’s right to wear religious insignia. This, the work will also suggest, is not surprising, for contrary to popular belief, the American conception of secularism is in many respects stricter than the French idea of laïcité, with the result that French ‘exceptionalism’ on matters of religion is hardly a convincing ground for justifying the new piece of legislation. The fundamental value of a Franco-American comparison, this work will suggest, ultimately lies with the fact that such a comparison demolishes a good portion of the popular myths surrounding the affaire des foulards: that the French legal system is fiercely secular; that the American one is strongly ‘religious’; and that France was, in 2004, confronted with a veritable ‘veil emergency’ that rendered the passage of the new statute all but inevitable.

For a variety of historical, cultural and political reasons, the Islamic headscarf has become an increasingly controversial matter in Europe. This is particularly the case in France, where the Parliament passed, in March 2004, a piece of legislation that prohibits students from wearing the Muslim veil—together with any other ‘conspicuous’ religious sign—in the classroom. Although Statute 228/2004 proved highly controversial and attracted unprecedented media attention, it was overwhelmingly supported by French MPs as a response to popular opposition towards religious insignia at school and was heralded as a ‘liberating’ piece of legislation that faithfully reasserted the beloved French principle of laïcité. Overseas, the new law was less favourably perceived and was often accused of being discriminatory and of violating the students’ freedom of religious expression. This thesis compares the French and American attitudes towards religious symbolism in general and the Islamic veil in particular. As in other matters, at first sight these two countries seem to adopt a very different—if not opposite—approach to religion and the Muslim veil, and so much so that their positions are often described as ‘irreconcilable’. This thesis will argue that this is hardly the case. Indeed, it will show that, at least before the passage of Statute 228-2004, the French and American legal systems adopted a substantially similar approach that appeared respectful of a veiled student’s right to wear religious insignia. This, the work will also suggest, is not surprising, for contrary to popular belief, the American conception of secularism is in many respects stricter than the French idea of laïcité, with the result that French ‘exceptionalism’ on matters of religion is hardly a convincing ground for justifying the new piece of legislation. The fundamental value of a Franco-American comparison, this work will suggest, ultimately lies with the fact that such a comparison demolishes a good portion of the popular myths surrounding the affaire des foulards: that the French legal system is fiercely secular; that the American one is strongly ‘religious’; and that France was, in 2004, confronted with a veritable ‘veil emergency’ that rendered the passage of the new statute all but inevitable.

For a variety of historical, cultural and political reasons, the Islamic headscarf has become an increasingly controversial matter in Europe. This is particularly the case in France, where the Parliament passed, in March 2004, a piece of legislation that prohibits students from wearing the Muslim veil—together with any other ‘conspicuous’ religious sign—in the classroom. Although Statute 228/2004 proved highly controversial and attracted unprecedented media attention, it was overwhelmingly supported by French MPs as a response to popular opposition towards religious insignia at school and was heralded as a ‘liberating’ piece of legislation that faithfully reasserted the beloved French principle of laïcité. Overseas, the new law was less favourably perceived and was often accused of being discriminatory and of violating the students’ freedom of religious expression. This thesis compares the French and American attitudes towards religious symbolism in general and the Islamic veil in particular. As in other matters, at first sight these two countries seem to adopt a very different—if not opposite—approach to religion and the Muslim veil, and so much so that their positions are often described as ‘irreconcilable’. This thesis will argue that this is hardly the case. Indeed, it will show that, at least before the passage of Statute 228-2004, the French and American legal systems adopted a substantially similar approach that appeared respectful of a veiled student’s right to wear religious insignia. This, the work will also suggest, is not surprising, for contrary to popular belief, the American conception of secularism is in many respects stricter than the French idea of laïcité, with the result that French ‘exceptionalism’ on matters of religion is hardly a convincing ground for justifying the new piece of legislation. The fundamental value of a Franco-American comparison, this work will suggest, ultimately lies with the fact that such a comparison demolishes a good portion of the popular myths surrounding the affaire des foulards: that the French legal system is fiercely secular; that the American one is strongly ‘religious’; and that France was, in 2004, confronted with a veritable ‘veil emergency’ that rendered the passage of the new statute all but inevitable.

For a variety of historical, cultural and political reasons, the Islamic headscarf has become an increasingly controversial matter in Europe. This is particularly the case in France, where the Parliament passed, in March 2004, a piece of legislation that prohibits students from wearing the Muslim veil—together with any other ‘conspicuous’ religious sign—in the classroom. Although Statute 228/2004 proved highly controversial and attracted unprecedented media attention, it was overwhelmingly supported by French MPs as a response to popular opposition towards religious insignia at school and was heralded as a ‘liberating’ piece of legislation that faithfully reasserted the beloved French principle of laïcité. Overseas, the new law was less favourably perceived and was often accused of being discriminatory and of violating the students’ freedom of religious expression. This thesis compares the French and American attitudes towards religious symbolism in general and the Islamic veil in particular. As in other matters, at first sight these two countries seem to adopt a very different—if not opposite—approach to religion and the Muslim veil, and so much so that their positions are often described as ‘irreconcilable’. This thesis will argue that this is hardly the case. Indeed, it will show that, at least before the passage of Statute 228-2004, the French and American legal systems adopted a substantially similar approach that appeared respectful of a veiled student’s right to wear religious insignia. This, the work will also suggest, is not surprising, for contrary to popular belief, the American conception of secularism is in many respects stricter than the French idea of laïcité, with the result that French ‘exceptionalism’ on matters of religion is hardly a convincing ground for justifying the new piece of legislation. The fundamental value of a Franco-American comparison, this work will suggest, ultimately lies with the fact that such a comparison demolishes a good portion of the popular myths surrounding the affaire des foulards: that the French legal system is fiercely secular; that the American one is strongly ‘religious’; and that France was, in 2004, confronted with a veritable ‘veil emergency’ that rendered the passage of the new statute all but inevitable.

This thesis starts by describing the legal foundation of religious liberty in the United States and the evolvement of the religion clause jurisprudence. Then follows an outline of the main legal theories on religious liberty. It continues to describe a case study conducted on how Americans citizens perceive the protection of their religious liberty. Upon this there is a chapter where the detailed findings from the case study are described in juxtaposition to the relevant jurisprudence and how this can be applied to the overall legal framework protecting religious liberty.  The final chapter is a discussion on what conclusions that can be drawn.

The conflict between the First Amendment and the Sixth Amendment is not new nor is it easily decipherable. Both amendments appear to have absolute priority, yet they appear to conflict (Erickson, 1977). The First Amendment declares unequivocally, "Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press[,]" while the Sixth Amendment states with equal force, "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed..." (U.S. Constitution, Amendment I, Amendment VI). Free speech and an unrestricted press can lead to a partial jury, but a jury unbiased by the media may mean restricted speech. In the judicial system the debate about how to balance these two competing constitutional rights has raged for decades, but one critical area—the nature and characteristics of requests for judicial "gag" orders—has been largely ignored. This thesis analyzed 103 cases from the Media Law Reporter volumes 19 through 33 (approximately 1991-2005) where gag orders were requested because of pretrial publicity. Those 103 cases were evaluated for the type of case, the reason for the case, when the gag order was requested, who requested the gag order, why they requested the gag order, who opposed the gag order, why they opposed the gag order, and why the gag order was granted or denied. It was found that although the issue of gag orders and their use in trials is not settled there is a general pattern to how they tend to be used. This study found that gag orders are most commonly used by judges in serious criminal trials, particularly at the federal level. Further, these cases usually involved juries, and the targets of the gag order were the parties involved in the trial, not the press.

No description available.

La tesi approfondisce il complesso rapporto tra diritto, religione e sanità nella realtà americana, concentrandosi in particolare sulle problematiche scaturenti dall’orientamento religioso del paziente, del care provider e della struttura sanitaria. La prima sezione si propone di studiare, sempre in chiave giuridica, l’evoluzione del rapporto tra fede e medicina, presentando altresì due casi di studio: i nativi americani e christian science. Nella seconda sezione, invece, si ricostruiscono le linee interpretative essenziali del primo emendamento con specifico approfondimento tanto della Free exercise clause che dalla establishment clause. Parimenti, viene tracciato un disegno di sintesi del sistema sanitario americano, soffermandosi tanto sugli aspetti pubblicistici che su quelli privatistici dello stesso. La ricerca, poi, si sofferma sull’analisi dettagliata delle problematiche evidenziate dalla giurisprudenza americana con riferimento al care receiver, al care provider e, soprattutto, al contenzioso in materia pediatrica. L’ultima parte è dedicata allo sviluppo di due distinti filoni, ovvero: il rapporto tra scienza e diritto ed il ruolo dell’economia. Questo ultimo aspetto viene approfondito sotto due diversi punti di vista. In primo luogo si ricostruisce l’impatto economico delle policy che garantiscono la libertà religiosa sul “sistema sanità”. In secondo luogo, si approfondisce il tema dell’influenza del dato economico sullo sviluppo della libertà religiosa in ambito sanitario. / This work deals with the complex relationship between law, religion and the sanitary system in the U.S. setting, by focusing on the problems emerging from the religious view of the patient, of the care provider and the religious orientation of the hospital or HMO. The first section of the work aims to study, from a legal point of view, the evolution of the relationship “medicine-religion”, and focuses on two case studies: native Americans and Christian science. In the second section the essential interpretative streamlines about the first amendment are presented, through a deep analysis of the Free Exercise Clause and of the Establishment Clause. At the same time, the American (U.S.) sanitary system is deeply studied both in the private sector and the public one. The research then focuses on a detailed analysis of the jurisprudence related to the care provider and the care receiver, while a specific section is dedicated to the litigation concerning pediatric patients and the related litigation cases. The last part develops two different subjects: the relationship between science and law, and the role of economy. This last subject is deeply analyzed under two different points of view: the economic impact of the religious freedom on the “sanitary system” on the one hand; and the influence of the economic data on the development of religious freedom in the health care system setting on the other.

Freedom of expression is a fundamental human right which is important not only for the intellectual integrity of an individual but also for the healthy development of the whole society. The work represents both general arguments for freedom of expression and codification of freedom in two different legal cultures. In the United States the freedom of expression is protected by the First Amendment of the Constitution, which complements the rich jurisprudence of the Supreme Court of the United States. In Mexico, the right is regulated in Article 6 of the Constitution. The work shows how both countries reached the current legislation on the basis of examination of legal developments and cultural values. The values of the societies are presented on the basis of Hofstede's cultural dimensions. The core of the thesis is to compare the legal limits, which is made primarily on the basis of judicial practice of the Supreme Courts of both countries. Emphasis is placed on four main areas which are related to freedom of speech: (i) fighting words including hate speech, (ii) symbolic speech, (iii) obscenity, and (iv) defamation. In addition to the legal limits the work interprets also the most significant actual limits in both countries. Finally, the author examines the relationship between freedom of expression and...

Accelerating from 2022 and continuing through 2024, the state of Florida has experienced significant policy changes, particularly within the realm of higher education and affairs of diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI). Many progressive officials, experts, and activists assert arguments that the state is on the verge of evolving into an authoritarian regime while many illiberal policies are being produced through the Florida legislature and current executive leadership—social and economic sectors are consequently threatened in order to maintain political oppression. The Stop W.O.K.E. Act has served as a catalyst for shifting the state's political stance on DEI, culminating in a chain reaction of similar forms of legislation which create serious ramifications onto civic life, creating a tense environment in the state. Along with suppression of DEI, academic freedom especially has been jeopardized with Florida's next line of students and instructors left to bear the consequences. The following research will contribute to theory and understanding, by analyzing the common misconceptions that revolve around nuanced terms such as “woke”, DEI, and CRT, while also examining how these influenced legislation in other states. This paper will also investigate precisely how the Act was enacted in Florida by conducting research on theoretical perspectives, governmental proceedings, discourse among officials, court battles, and impacts that can likely last for generations, leading to potential harms onto the nation as a whole.