Damned if they do, Damned if they don't: the European Court of Human Rights and the Protection of Religion from Attack
Res Publica 17 (1):55-73 (2011)
| Abstract | The approach of the European Court of Human Rights to cases of religiously offensive expression is inconsistent and unsatisfactory. A critical analysis of the Court’s jurisprudence on blasphemy, religious insult and religious hatred identifies three problems with its approach in this field. These are: the embellishment and over-emphasis of freedom of religion, the use of the margin of appreciation and the devaluing of some forms of offensive speech. Nevertheless, it is possible to defend a more coherent approach to the limitation of freedom of expression under the European Convention of Human Rights, designed to protect religious liberty in a narrower category of cases | |||||||||
| Keywords | No keywords specified (fix it) | |||||||||
| Categories | ||||||||||
| Options |
|
|||||||||
Download options| PhilPapers Archive |
Upload a copy of this paper Check publisher's policy on self-archival Papers currently archived: 5,701 |
| External links |
 |
| Through your library | Configure |
Similar books and articlesJill Marshall (2008). Women's Right to Autonomy and Identity in European Human Rights Law: Manifesting One's Religion. Res Publica 14 (3):177-192.
Eric Barendt (2011). Religious Hatred Laws: Protecting Groups or Belief? Res Publica 17 (1):41-53.
Francesca Bignami (2009). Constitutional Patriotism and the Right to Privacy : A Comparison of the European Court of Justice and the European Court of Human Rights. In Thérèse Murphy (ed.), New Technologies and Human Rights. Oxford University Press.
Louis Henkin (1998). Religion, Religions, and Human Rights. Journal of Religious Ethics 26 (2):229 - 239.
Analytics
Monthly downloads |
Added to index2011-01-01Total downloads9 ( #114,124 of 549,119 )Recent downloads (6 months)2 ( #37,390 of 549,119 )How can I increase my downloads? |
My notes
Discussion
