Wu, Shujun. / Thesis (M.Phil.)--Chinese University of Hong Kong, 2011. / Includes bibliographical references (leave 31). / Abstracts in English and Chinese.

Canada and the United States are similar in many respects, and both protect individual rights at a constitutional level. However, the Supreme Court of Canada and the United States Supreme Court have developed alternative conceptions of the constitutional protection of freedom of expression and equality. This thesis describes these differences and attempts to explain the reasons for their development. Under the Fourteenth Amendment, the U.S. Supreme Court merely requires that governmental actors refrain from overt discrimination on the basis of an objectionable ground. Thus, the Court has created numerous doctrines to limit equality to this definition, including color-blindness, intentional discrimination, and multiple levels of review. Each of these concepts has contributed to the application of formal equality by restricting governmental attempts, such as affirmative action, to alleviate social inequality. In addition, the Court's application of content neutrality to freedom of expression cases has restricted attempts to promote equality through legislation restricting hate speech and pornography. By contrast, the Supreme Court of Canada has interpreted the protection of equality in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms to respond to the actual social consequences of legislation. Rather than limiting the Charter to intentional discrimination, the Court will consider governmental actions which have the effect of creating or encouraging inequality. Similarly, governmental restrictions on hate speech and pornography have been upheld by the Supreme Court of Canada as necessary for the protection of equality. For the Supreme Court of Canada, equality has a social reality. These differences suggest an alternative role of government in the rights sphere in Canada and the United States. The United States Supreme Court has developed a rights interpretation which excludes much significant governmental action, whether positive or negative. The Court has incorporated the Bill of Rights into the Fourteenth Amendment and, in doing so, has expanded individual rights at the expense of state power in the promotion of equality. The lack of such a development in Canada has resulted in a more substantial role for social legislation, while still protecting against governmental overreaching through the Charter.

Canada and the United States are similar in many respects, and both protect individual rights at a constitutional level. However, the Supreme Court of Canada and the United States Supreme Court have developed alternative conceptions of the constitutional protection of freedom of expression and equality. This thesis describes these differences and attempts to explain the reasons for their development. Under the Fourteenth Amendment, the U.S. Supreme Court merely requires that governmental actors refrain from overt discrimination on the basis of an objectionable ground. Thus, the Court has created numerous doctrines to limit equality to this definition, including color-blindness, intentional discrimination, and multiple levels of review. Each of these concepts has contributed to the application of formal equality by restricting governmental attempts, such as affirmative action, to alleviate social inequality. In addition, the Court's application of content neutrality to freedom of expression cases has restricted attempts to promote equality through legislation restricting hate speech and pornography. By contrast, the Supreme Court of Canada has interpreted the protection of equality in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms to respond to the actual social consequences of legislation. Rather than limiting the Charter to intentional discrimination, the Court will consider governmental actions which have the effect of creating or encouraging inequality. Similarly, governmental restrictions on hate speech and pornography have been upheld by the Supreme Court of Canada as necessary for the protection of equality. For the Supreme Court of Canada, equality has a social reality. These differences suggest an alternative role of government in the rights sphere in Canada and the United States. The United States Supreme Court has developed a rights interpretation which excludes much significant governmental action, whether positive or negative. The Court has incorporated the Bill of Rights into the Fourteenth Amendment and, in doing so, has expanded individual rights at the expense of state power in the promotion of equality. The lack of such a development in Canada has resulted in a more substantial role for social legislation, while still protecting against governmental overreaching through the Charter. / Law, Peter A. Allard School of / Graduate

Thesis (M.A.)--University of Kentucky, 2001. / Title from document title page. Document formatted into pages; contains iii, 70 p. Includes abstract. Includes bibliographical references (p. 65-69).

Thesis (M.S.)--University of North Texas, Dec., 2009. / Title from title page display. Includes bibliographical references.

Thesis (M.S.)--University of Wisconsin--Madison, 1973. / eContent provider-neutral record in process. Description based on print version record. Includes bibliographical references.

Thesis (Ph. D.)--University of Wisconsin--Madison, 1973. / Typescript. Vita. eContent provider-neutral record in process. Description based on print version record. Includes bibliographical references.

Thesis (Ph. D.)--University of Texas at Austin, 1998. / Vita. Includes bibliographical references (leaves 248-257). Available also in a digital version from Dissertation Abstracts.

Thesis--Wisconsin. / Vita. Includes bibliographical references (leaves 164-174).

This thesis focuses primarily on the question ”why is freedom of speech valuable in a democratic context?” I argue that it is problematic that free-dom of speech takes for granted and that the main question therefore is absent in current political science research, in legal texts, and in public discourse. I also argue that in democratic states the focus, regarding freedom of speech, is often on its boundaries and limits rather than on its justification. But it is highly problematic to find and establish its limits without dis-cussion why freedom of speech is desirable in the first place. The thesis poses two questions. The first concerns how freedom of speech is justified by the five strongest available arguments. I analyze the arguments and conclude that they justify freedom of speech differently but that they are similar in one aspect. Freedom of speech is not primarily justified as an individual right. It is rather justified in terms of the public good. The second question asks if we can reach a better understanding of the central arguments. I argue that the arguments have something in common; all of them justify freedom of speech with reference to a common value. I argue that this common value is what I call, a “reliable communication process”. All five arguments claim that freedom of speech is valuable because it promotes a reliable communication process. This process is reliable in terms of its capacity to create a pluralistic public discourse that exposes citizens to ideas and perspectives that they would not have chosen in advance. This study results in the following findings. First, that freedom of speech is valuable in a democratic context because the reliable communication process supports the central democratic value of the enlightened understanding of the democratic citizen. Secondly, that I can give a principled reason for the boundaries of freedom of speech. This means that, according to the arguments, there are reasons to abolish or limit freedom of speech if the reliable communication process is damaged or absent, for example in case of war, anarchy, or violent circumstances. Third, that there are strong reasons in support of a public service media, and greater state intervention in media politics. One strong reason for that conclusion is that a public service media can ensure a pluralistic communication in society and counteract information conformity and intolerance among the members of society.