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.

Thesis (Ph. D.)--University of Missouri-Columbia, 1998. / Typescript. Vita. Includes bibliographical references. Also available on the Internet.

Thesis (Ph. D.)--University of Missouri-Columbia, 1998. / Typescript. Vita. Includes bibliographical references. Also available on the Internet.

Thesis (M.A.)--University of Missouri-Columbia, 2004. / Typescript. Includes bibliographical references (leaves 175-187). Also available on the Internet.

Thesis (Ph. D.)--University of Oregon, 2002. / Typescript. Includes vita and abstract. Includes bibliographical references (leaves 266-277). Also available for download via the World Wide Web; free to University of Oregon users.

Thesis (Ph. D.)--University of Wisconsin--Madison, 1966. / Typescript. Vita. Description based on print version record. Includes bibliographical references (leaves 310-326).

Thesis (J.C.L.)--Catholic University of America, 2004. / Includes bibliographical references (leaves 59-64).

Thesis (M.A.)--University of Missouri-Columbia, 2004. / Typescript. Includes bibliographical references (leaves 175-187). Also available on the Internet.

Freedom of the press in Thailand fluctuates greatly, depending upon the government in each period. Newspapers have been suppressed since the monarchy political system was changed to democracy in 1932. Several kinds of suppression were imposed in each period which showed that the country, in reality, was under a military dictatorship. This study is a summary of the government control of the press since 1932. The study was divided into five chapters, including the introduction, background of the press and politics in Thailand, style and characteristics of Thai newspapers, government control from 1932 to 1963, and the conclusions and recommendations for further study.

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