No description available.

Following the decision by the Supreme Court of the United States in Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Association (2011), which struck down the state of California’s appeal to restrict the sale of games deemed to have “deviant violence” to those 18 or older and the court’s recommendation that parents use the ESRB Ratings System instead, this ethnographic study sought to better understand what parents thought of laws on video games and how they used the recommended ratings system. A total of 30 interviews using semi-structured open-ended questions were conducted and analyzed to reveal what parents thought of laws on video games, how they used the ESRB Ratings System to assess video game content, and what other methods they used for video game content assessment in addition to the ratings system. This research utilized Dervin and Nilan’s (1986) sense-making methodology as a way to learn how parents bridged their knowledge gap when it came to learning about video game content and how they made sense of the knowledge gained to determine the content appropriateness for their children. Analyses of the collected data provided the foundation for a model on the effects of the parent-child relationship on parental information behavior.

JUDGE-MADE LAW COMPARISON BETWEEN THE COURT OF JUSTICE OF THE EUROPEAN UNION AND THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES Keywords: judge-made law; the European Union; the Court of Justice of the European Union; the Supreme Court of the United States; judicialization of governance; Kelsenian court; European constitutional space; European constitution; normativity; constitutional pluralism; sovereignty; federalism; post-communist states; new Member States of the European Union. Standard page (that is 1800 characters per page) and word count (including footnotes; without the contents, bibliography and annexes): 327 standard pages; 82 795 words. The Ph.D. thesis offers a complex reconceptualization of the constitutional system in the European Union. The constitutional systems of the Member States have been substantially transformed during the 20th century. Meanwhile a new constitutional system functioning in the Member States alongside their own systems has emerged - the constitutional system of the European Union. These two fundamental changes are difficult to grasp through an existing theoretical framework. That is because the framework is based on a set of outdated concepts: (i) Rousseau's concept of volonté générale that forms the basis of the parliamentary supremacy in a constitutional system; (ii)...

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.

Submitted by Pedro Marques Neto (marquesnetop@gmail.com) on 2018-06-15T16:59:07Z No. of bitstreams: 1 Dissertação FGV - Pedro Marques Neto - Depósito Final.pdf: 903571 bytes, checksum: 72ae2bf4560cbdf52da5d6aaade0039b (MD5) / Approved for entry into archive by Katia Menezes de Souza (katia.menezes@fgv.br) on 2018-06-15T18:30:23Z (GMT) No. of bitstreams: 1 Dissertação FGV - Pedro Marques Neto - Depósito Final.pdf: 903571 bytes, checksum: 72ae2bf4560cbdf52da5d6aaade0039b (MD5) / Approved for entry into archive by Isabele Garcia (isabele.garcia@fgv.br) on 2018-06-15T21:15:20Z (GMT) No. of bitstreams: 1 Dissertação FGV - Pedro Marques Neto - Depósito Final.pdf: 903571 bytes, checksum: 72ae2bf4560cbdf52da5d6aaade0039b (MD5) / Made available in DSpace on 2018-06-15T21:15:20Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 Dissertação FGV - Pedro Marques Neto - Depósito Final.pdf: 903571 bytes, checksum: 72ae2bf4560cbdf52da5d6aaade0039b (MD5) Previous issue date: 2018-05-23 / Esta pesquisa analisa e compara os argumentos empregados pelas supremas cortes de Brasil e Estados Unidos a respeito da constitucionalidade de medidas legislativas que permitem, limitam ou vedam o financiamento privado de campanha eleitoral. A judicialização do tema coloca problemas de duas ordens: (a) determinar quais circunstâncias legitimam a intervenção das supremas cortes na organização do processo político-eleitoral; e (b) estabelecer como as supremas cortes deveriam raciocinar e como elas têm raciocinado ao supervisionarem a organização do sistema democrático. No cerne dessas questões encontram-se os contornos da relação entre jurisdição constitucional e política em termos do papel a ser desempenhado pelo Poder Judiciário no desenho institucional da democracia. Este trabalho sustenta que cortes constitucionais estão legitimadas a intervir na organização da democracia para minimizar danos democráticos causados por desenhos institucionais que promovam a dominação na esfera político-eleitoral, conforme modelo proposto por Yasmin Dawood. O argumento é de que cortes constitucionais devem raciocinar a partir de uma concepção estrutural dos direitos democráticos focada na minimização de danos democráticos, em contraposição a concepções individuais dos direitos democráticos ou concepções estruturais focadas na maximização de bens democráticos. Assim, contrasto a abordagem proposta pelo modelo antidominação com as práticas das supremas cortes de Brasil e Estados Unidos. Enquanto a Suprema Corte dos Estados Unidos raciocina na linha da abordagem proposta pelo modelo de proteção de direitos individuais, sustento que o Supremo Tribunal Federal raciocina na linha da abordagem proposta pelo modelo de maximização de bens democráticos. Argumento que, em ambos os casos, os modelos adotados produzem equívocos nas decisões das cortes sobre a constitucionalidade do financiamento privado de campanhas eleitorais, sugerindo, então, respostas alternativas com base no modelo antidominação, mais deferentes, embora não submissas, às escolhas políticas do Poder Legislativo. / This research analyses and contrasts the arguments employed by the Brazilian and American constitutional courts on the constitutionality of campaign finance regulation. The judicialization of campaign finance disputes poses two issues: (i) first, to determine under which circumstances judicial intervention on the organization of electoral politics is legitimate; (ii) second, to lay down how constitutional courts should reason when - and how they have been reasoning about - they oversee the organization of democratic politics. These issues have at their core the relationship between constitutional jurisdiction and democratic politics in terms of the role displayed by the Judiciary in the (institutional) design of democracy. This research claims that constitutional courts can legitimately intervene in the organization of democracy in order to minimize democratic harms caused by institutional designs that promote domination in the electoral sphere, in accordance with the antidomination model of judicial oversight of democracy proposed by Yasmin Dawood. My argument is that constitutional courts should develop a structural conception of democratic rights focused on the minimization of democratic harms, in contrast with individual conception of such rights or structural conceptions focused on the maximization of democratic goods. Thus, I contrast the antidomination model with the concrete experience of the Brazilian and American constitutional courts. While the Supreme Court of the United States’ approach focuses on the protection of individual rights, I claim that the Supreme Federal Court of Brazil’s approach focuses on the maximization of democratic goods. I claim that both approaches distort the judicial oversight of campaign finance regulation by the Brazilian and the American constitutional courts and so I propose alternative answers based on the antidomination model, according to which courts are more deferential, though not submissive, to the political choices of the legislative body.

The ONE Exhibition explores an era in American history marked by intense government sponsored anti-gay persecution and the genesis of the LGBT equality movement. The study begins during World War II, continues through the McCarthy era and the founding of the nation’s first gay magazine, and ends in 1958 with the first gay Supreme Court case in U.S. history. Central to the story is ONE The Homosexual Magazine, and its founders, as they embarked on a quest for LGBT equality by establishing the first ongoing nationwide forum for gay people in the U.S., and challenged the government’s right to engage in and encourage hateful and discriminatory practices against the LGBT community. Then, when the magazine was banned by the Post Office, the editors and staff took the federal government to court. As such, ONE, Incorporated v. Olesen became the first Supreme Court case in U.S. history that featured the taboo subject of homosexuality, and secured the 1st Amendment right to freedom of speech for the gay press. Thus, ONE magazine and its founders were an integral part of a small group of activists who established the foundations of the modern LGBT equality movement.