DOCSLIB.ORG

A Perfectionist Defense of Free Speech

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
A Perfectionist Defense of Free Speech A PERFECTIONIST DEFENSE OF FREE SPEECH Jonathan K. Miles A Dissertation Submitted to the Graduate College of Bowling Green State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy December 2009 Committee: Daniel Jacobson, Advisor David Jackson, Graduate Faculty Representative Fred D. Miller Jr. Steven P. Wall Ellen F. Paul © 2009 Jonathan Miles All Rights Reserved iii ABSTRACT Daniel Jacobson, Advisor This dissertation presents a perfectionist argument for viewpoint neutral free speech. It is argued that developed states ought to maintain or adopt the Viewpoint Neutral Principle: As a matter of public morality, any public institution is disqualified from intentionally aiming to hinder the expression of any viewpoint by suppression except for purposes of temporary censorship to prevent clear, present, and imminent danger. This principle allows for regulation but does not allow for censorship due to objectionable viewpoints. After demonstrating how the standard justifications for free speech are not sufficient for the viewpoint neutral principle, I construct a Millian self-development argument drawing from the oft neglected justification of freedom of speech in On Liberty. Mill argues that a person is not deserving of confidence in his opinion unless he has engaged in certain practices of justification for his own opinions. These practices are the only way to acquire the intellectual virtue of justified belief-forming, and censorship undermines these practices. Furthermore, the intellectual virtue of justified belief forming informs moral virtues which include dispositions to express praise or blame. Censorship can undermine and, in some cases, make impossible the practices of justification. If the state engages in viewpoint specific censorship of public speech, it undermines the individual pursuit of justified opinion to the extent that it hinders critical reflections, adjustment, and exposition of opinions. After explicating the argument itself, I apply the justified opinion argument to one contemporary example. The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights under the auspices of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights of the United Nations has passed articles 7/19 and 7/20. These resolutions violate the viewpoint neutral principle. It is argued that developed nations should reject these resolutions in order to preserve (among other things) intellectual virtue. iv If there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion, or force citizens to confess by word or act their faith therein. Justice Robert H. Jackson, West Virginia Board of Education v. Barnette v DEDICATION This dissertation is dedicated to the countless Chinese Christians who have been imprisoned or killed for the crime of sharing ideas. It is also dedicated to the thousands driven from their homes in the Orissa region of India for defying the national religion. …και επλυναν τας στολας αυτων και ελευκαναν αυτας εν τω αιματι του αρνιου vi ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I wish to thank the members of my committee for their instruction and wisdom. I especially want to thank Dan Jacobson for directing this new argument by instilling in me a love for the classical arguments of Mill. My thanks also go to Fred D. Miller for deepening my respect for Aristotle and for teaching me how to imitate good writers. Steve Wall nurtured my peculiar perfectionist bent. Ellen Paul deserves thanks for hours of discussion about the law and first amendment jurisprudence. I have benefitted from countless conversations and critiques by Fred Miller’s dissertation group. Virtually everyone in the Bowling Green Philosophy Department has suffered through some fragment or another of my argument. Special thanks go to Leanne Kent, Corwin Carr, Ben Dyer, Noah Levin, Kari Dyer, Terrence Watson, and Peter Jaworski. They not only listened to but challenged every premise. The argument is better for their generosity. The mistakes are all mine. Special thanks also goes to Jan Narveson for patiently arguing the general rights strategy with me. I must also thank two organizations for funding my graduate education. Without the Humane Studies Fellowship from the Institute for Humane Studies and the Earhart Fellowship from the Earhart Foundation, this project would never have been completed in a timely manner. Special thanks go to Ben Dyer for formatting wizardry and Microsoft alchemy. Finally I could not have done any of this without my wife, Stacie Botsay Miles. It was once said that Ginger Rogers could do everything Fred Astaire could do, only backwards and in high heels. Stacie has struggled through the ups and downs of this project as much as I have only she did it while giving birth and then raising a toddler. She is more precious than jewels, the heart of her husband trusts her, and her children will call her blessed. vii TABLE OF CONTENTS ABSTRACT.......................................................................................................................................................iii DEDICATION .................................................................................................................................................v ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS..........................................................................................................................vi TABLE OF CONTENTS .............................................................................................................................vii CHAPTER 1 EXPRESSION, RIGHTS, AND THE PUBLIC SQUARE.............................................1 1.1 Philosophical Questions of Free Speech.............................................................................................1 1.2 Expression in the Public Square...........................................................................................................4 1.3 Viewpoint Neutrality ..............................................................................................................................9 1.4 The General Rights Strategy................................................................................................................12 Conclusion....................................................................................................................................................26 CHAPTER 2 SPECIAL JUSTIFICATIONS FOR VIEWPOINT NEUTRALITY...........................28 2.1 The Viewpoint Neutral Principle and its Justification.....................................................................29 2.2 Two Problems for Any Special Rights Justification.........................................................................30 2.3 Four Justifications for Viewpoint Neutrality ....................................................................................38 Tentative Conclusion..................................................................................................................................50 CHAPTER 3 PRACTICES OF JUSTIFICATION AND HUMAN FLOURISHING.....................52 3.1 The Practices of Justification ..............................................................................................................53 3.2 Proposition 1 .........................................................................................................................................63 3.3 Proposition 2 .........................................................................................................................................75 3.4 Proposition 3 .........................................................................................................................................79 Conclusion....................................................................................................................................................84 CHAPTER 4 THE PRACTICES OF JUSTIFICATION AND STATE ACTION...........................85 4.1 Prolegomena..........................................................................................................................................86 4.2 JOA and Neutralism.............................................................................................................................89 4.3 The JOA and Perfectionism................................................................................................................96 4.4 Proposition 4 .........................................................................................................................................97 4.5 Proposition 5 ...................................................................................................................................... 109 4.6 Proposition 6 ...................................................................................................................................... 110 4.7 Proposition 7 ...................................................................................................................................... 116 4.8 Proposition 8 ...................................................................................................................................... 120 Conclusion................................................................................................................................................. 120 CHAPTER 5 THE PRACTICES OF JUSTIFICATION AND THE COSTS OF CENSORING PERNICIOUS SPEECH .............................................................................................................................122
Load more

Recommended publications
  • In Defense of Self-Determination
    In Defense of Self-Determination Daniel Philpott Ethics, Vol. 105, No. 2. (Jan., 1995), pp. 352-385. Stable URL: http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0014-1704%28199501%29105%3A2%3C352%3AIDOS%3E2.0.CO%3B2-B Ethics is currently published by The University of Chicago Press. Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/about/terms.html. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use. Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at http://www.jstor.org/journals/ucpress.html. Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transmission. The JSTOR Archive is a trusted digital repository providing for long-term preservation and access to leading academic journals and scholarly literature from around the world. The Archive is supported by libraries, scholarly societies, publishers, and foundations. It is an initiative of JSTOR, a not-for-profit organization with a mission to help the scholarly community take advantage of advances in technology. For more information regarding JSTOR, please contact [email protected]. http://www.jstor.org Fri Mar 28 02:06:01 2008 In Defense of Self-Determination* Daniel Philpott INTRODUCTION Thinking back upon the fracas over self-determination at the 1919 Conference at Versailles, former Secretary of State Robert Lansing re- corded that the concept was "loaded with dynamite.
    [Show full text]
  • The Right to Freedom of Thought, Conscience and Religion Or Belief
    Level 1, 4 Campion St 594 St Kilda Rd DEAKIN ACT 2600 MELBOURNE VIC 3004 T 02 6259 0431 T 02 6171 7446 E [email protected] E [email protected] 14 February 2018 The Expert Panel on Religious Freedom C/o Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet By email: [email protected] RE: Submission to the Commonwealth Expert Panel on Religious Freedom 1. The Human Rights Law Alliance and the Australian Christian Lobby welcome this opportunity to make a submission to the Inquiry into the Status of the Human Right to Freedom of Religion or Belief. 2. The Human Rights Law Alliance implements legal strategies to protect and promote fundamental human rights. It does this by resourcing legal cases with funding and expertise to create rights-protecting legal precedents. The Alliance is especially concerned to protect and promote the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion or belief. In the past 24 months, the Alliance has aided more than 30 legal cases, and allied lawyers appeared in State Tribunals and Magistrates, District and Supreme Courts as well as the Federal Court. 3. With more than 100,000 supporters, ACL facilitates professional engagement and dialogue between the Christian constituency and government, allowing the voice of Christians to be heard in the public square. ACL is neither party partisan or denominationally aligned. ACL representatives bring a Christian perspective to policy makers in Federal, State and Territory parliaments. 4. This submission focusses on the intersection between freedom of religion and other human rights first in international law, second in Australian law, and third in the lived experience of Australians.
    [Show full text]
  • Rossian Moral Pluralism: a (Partial) Defense
    Georgia State University ScholarWorks @ Georgia State University Philosophy Theses Department of Philosophy 6-9-2006 Rossian Moral Pluralism: A (Partial) Defense Angela J. Desaulniers Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.gsu.edu/philosophy_theses Part of the Philosophy Commons Recommended Citation Desaulniers, Angela J., "Rossian Moral Pluralism: A (Partial) Defense." Thesis, Georgia State University, 2006. https://scholarworks.gsu.edu/philosophy_theses/5 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Department of Philosophy at ScholarWorks @ Georgia State University. It has been accepted for inclusion in Philosophy Theses by an authorized administrator of ScholarWorks @ Georgia State University. For more information, please contact [email protected]. ROSSIAN MORAL PLURALISM: A (PARTIAL) DEFENSE by ANGELA J DESAULNIERS Under the Direction of Andrew Altman ABSTRACT Rossian moral pluralism’s rejection of a founding moral principle and use of ‘prima facie duties’ as opposed to absolute duties makes it unique from most other major ethical theories. It has been attacked in a myriad of different ways because of this. Brad Hooker has proposed two objections based on these ideas. The first is that moral pluralism is lacking justification because of its rejection of a founding moral principle. The second is that because of this, and its lack of absolute duties, moral pluralism is an indeterminate theory. In this paper I will look at Hooker’s objections as well as two responses that have been proposed as solutions. Having shown these solutions to be insufficient I will then propose a way to look at Ross’ moral pluralism that saves it from Hooker’s objections and clearly lays out Ross’ understanding of how we should deliberate about moral matters.
    [Show full text]
  • Freedom of Speech, Freedom of Self-Expression, and Kant's Public
    Diametros 54 (2017): 118–137 doi: 10.13153/diam.54.2017.1136 FREEDOM OF SPEECH, FREEDOM OF SELF-EXPRESSION, AND KANT’S PUBLIC USE OF REASON – Geert Van Eekert – Abstract. This article turns to early modern and Enlightenment advocates of tolerance (Locke, Spi- noza, John Stuart Mill) to discover and lay bare the line of argument that has informed their com- mitment to free speech. This line of argument will subsequently be used to assess the shift from free speech to the contemporary ideal of free self-expression. In order to take this assessment one step further, this article will finally turn to Immanuel Kant’s famous defense of the public use of reason. In the wake of Katerina Deligiorgi’s readings of Kant, it will show that the idea of free speech requires a specific disposition on behalf of speakers and writers that is in danger of being neglected in the contemporary prevailing conception of free speech as freedom of self-expression. Keywords: John Locke, Baruch Spinoza, Immanuel Kant, John Stuart Mill, freedom of speech, free- dom of self-expression, public use of reason, Enlightenment. Contemporary debates about free speech or freedom of speech primarily deal with the question how free speech should be (in the sense of both “How free should speech be?” and “How should free speech be?”), and not (or at least not mainly) with the question why speech should be free.1 Admittedly, there seems to be no reason to urge the latter question: it is rather generally agreed upon today (at least in liberal democratic societies) that freedom of speech should be both es- teemed and categorically defended because it is both a fundamental human right and a key pillar of democracy and of the (scientific) quest for knowledge.
    [Show full text]
  • On Flew's Compatibilism and His Objections to Theistic Libertarianism
    On Flew’s Compatibilism and His Objections to Theistic Libertarianism 2015/25 115 Kaygı Uludağ Üniversitesi Fen-Edebiyat Fakültesi Felsefe Dergisi Uludağ University Faculty of Arts and Sciences Journal of Philosophy Sayı 25 / Issue 25│Bahar 2015 / Fall 2015 ISSN: 1303-4251 Research Article Araştırma Makalesi Hakan GUNDOGDU* Doç.Dr. | Assoc.Prof.Dr. Gazi University, Faculty of Arts, Department of Philosophy, Ankara-Turkey [email protected] On Flew’s Compatibilism and His Objections to Theistic Libertarianism Abstract Flew strongly defends a compatibilist thesis in the free will debate before going on to totally object to theistic libertarianism. His objections basically rely on his compatibilism embracing the notion of agent causation, which is not very common in compatibilist theses. Since he is a strong proponent of ordinary language philosophy, he also holds that linguistic analyses can certainly solve the free will problem as well as many other problems of philosophy. In doing so, he first uses the paradigm cases based on our common sense experience and then assumes the verity of principle of alternative possibilities. This study attempts to show, on the one hand, that there are some serious difficulties in both his justification of compatibilism and his objections to theistic libertarianism, and on the other hand, that he cannot easily defend both at the same time. Keywords Antony Flew, Compatibilism, Free-Will, Agent, Causation, Theistic Libertarianism, Paradigm Case Argument, Principle of Alternative Possibility. * This study was funded by the Scientific and Research Council of Turkey (TUBITAK): 2219 / 1059B191400716. On Flew’s Compatibilism and His Objections to Theistic Libertarianism 116 2015/25 1.
    [Show full text]
  • A Brief Appraisal of Behavioral Economists' Plea for Light Paternalism
    Brazilian Journal of Political Economy, vol 32, nº 3 (128), pp 445-458, July-September/2012 Freedom of choice and bounded rationality: a brief appraisal of behavioral economists’ plea for light paternalism ROBERTA MURAMATSU PATRÍCIA FONSECA* Behavioral economics has addressed interesting positive and normative ques- tions underlying the standard rational choice theory. More recently, it suggests that, in a real world of boundedly rational agents, economists could help people to im- prove the quality of their choices without any harm to autonomy and freedom of choice. This paper aims to scrutinize available arguments for and against current proposals of light paternalistic interventions mainly in the domain of intertemporal choice. It argues that incorporating the notion of bounded rationality in economic analysis and empirical findings of cognitive biases and self-control problems cannot make an indisputable case for paternalism. Keywords: freedom; choice; bounded rationality; paternalism; behavioral eco- nomics. JEL Classification: B40; B41; D11; D91. So the immediate problem in Libertarian Paternalism is the fatuity of its declared motivation Very few libertarians have maintained what Thaler and Sunstein suggest they maintain, and indeed many of the leading theorists have worked with ideas in line with what Thaler and Sunstein have to say about man’s nature Thaler and Sunstein are forcing an open door Daniel Klein, Statist Quo Bias, Economic Journal Watch, 2004 * Professora doutora da Universidade Presbiteriana Mackenzie e do Insper, e-mail: rmuramatsu@uol. com.br; Pesquisadora independente na área de Economia Comportamental e Psicologia Econômica, e-mail [email protected]. Submetido: 23/fevereiro/2011. Aprovado: 12/março/2011. Revista de Economia Política 32 (3), 2012 445 IntrodUCTION There is a long-standing methodological tradition stating that economics is a positive science that remains silent about policy issues and the complex determi- nants of human ends, values and motives.
    [Show full text]
  • Happiness and Economic Freedom: Are They Related?
    SHS Web of Conferences 28, 01109 (2016) DOI: 10.1051/shsconf/20162801109 RPTSS 2015 Happiness and economic freedom: Are they related? Ilkay Yilmaz1,a, and Mehmet Nasih Tag2 1Mersin University, Department of Economics, Mersin University, 33342 Mersin, Turkey 2Mersin University, Department of Business Administration, Mersin University, 33342 Mersin, Turkey Abstract. In this article we investigate the linkage between economic freedom and happiness (subjective well-being). We attempt to understand which economic institutions (rule of law, limited government, regulatory efficiency, open markets) have influence on subjective well-being. For this purpose we use a panel dataset and analyze the effect of economic freedom on subjective well-being while using various control variables such as government expenditures as percentage of GDP, human development, social support, freedom of choice and generosity. Our pooled FGLS estimations indicate that all pillars of economic freedom have a strong influence on the average subjective well-being in society. Three of these pillars, namely rule of law, regulatory efficiency and open markets, positively affect subjective well-being. To our surprise we have found a negative relationship between limited government and subjective well- being. This might be due to the situation that reducing the size of government possibly leads to lower government expenditures and higher unemployment, which in turn results in lower subjective well-being. 1 Introduction if any, increase the level of subjective well-being in a country. The literature on the relationship between As the great Austrian economist Ludwig von Mises economic institutions and economic growth suggests that explained in his magnum opus, human action can be good governmental institutions foster economic growth defined as the striving for happiness.
    [Show full text]
  • The Freedom of Academic Freedom: a Legal Dilemma
    Chicago-Kent Law Review Volume 48 Issue 2 Article 4 October 1971 The Freedom of Academic Freedom: A Legal Dilemma Luis Kutner Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.kentlaw.iit.edu/cklawreview Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Luis Kutner, The Freedom of Academic Freedom: A Legal Dilemma, 48 Chi.-Kent L. Rev. 168 (1971). Available at: https://scholarship.kentlaw.iit.edu/cklawreview/vol48/iss2/4 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by Scholarly Commons @ IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in Chicago-Kent Law Review by an authorized editor of Scholarly Commons @ IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law. For more information, please contact [email protected], [email protected]. THE FREEDOM OF ACADEMIC FREEDOM: A LEGAL DILEMMA Luis KUTNER* Because modern man in his search for truth has turned away from kings, priests, commissars and bureaucrats, he is left, for better or worse, with professors. -Walter Lippman. Complete liberty of contradicting and disproving our opinion is the very condition which justifies us in assuming its truth for purposes of action.... -John Stuart Mill, On Liberty. I. INTRODUCTION IN THESE DAYS of crisis in higher education, part of the threat to aca- demic freedom-which includes the concepts of freedom of thought, inquiry, expression and orderly assembly-has come, unfortunately, from certain actions by professors, who have traditionally enjoyed the protection that academic freedom affords. While many of the professors who teach at American institutions of higher learning are indeed competent and dedicated scholars in their fields, a number of their colleagues have allied themselves with student demonstrators and like organized groups who seek to destroy the free and open atmosphere of the academic community.
    [Show full text]
  • Freedom of Thought, Conscience and Religion
    Freedom of thought, COUNCIL CONSEIL conscience OF EUROPE DE L’EUROPE and religion A guide to the implementation of Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights Jim Murdoch Human rights handbooks, No. 9 HRHB9_EN.book Page 1 Tuesday, June 26, 2007 4:08 PM HRHB9_EN.book Page 1 Tuesday, June 26, 2007 4:08 PM Freedom of thought, conscience and religion A guide to the implementation of Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights Jim Murdoch Human rights handbooks, No. 9 HRHB9_EN.book Page 2 Tuesday, June 26, 2007 4:08 PM In the “Human rights handbooks” series: No. 1: The right to respect for private No. 6: The prohibition of torture. A Directorate General and family life. A guide to the implemen- guide to the implementation of Article 3 of Human Rights tation of Article 8 of the European Con- of the European Convention on Human and Legal Affairs vention on Human Rights (2001) Rights (2003) Council of Europe F-67075 Strasbourg Cedex No. 2: Freedom of expression. A guide to the implementation of Article 10 of the No. 7 : Positive obligations under the © Council of Europe, 2007 European Convention on Human Rights European Convention on Human Cover illustration © Sean Nel – Fotolia.com (2001) Rights. A guide to the implementation of No. 3: The right to a fair trial. A guide to the European Convention on Human 1st printing, June 2007 the implementation of Article 6 of the Rights (2007) Printed in Belgium European Convention on Human Rights (2001; 2nd edition, 2006) No. 8: The right to life.
    [Show full text]
  • The Right to Freedom of Thought, Conscience and Religion Or Belief
    Level 1, 4 Campion St PO Box 232 DEAKIN ACT 2600 DEAKIN WEST ACT 2600 T 02 6259 0431 T 02 6171 7446 E [email protected] E [email protected] 04 May 2017 Committee Secretary Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade PO Box 6021 Parliament House Canberra ACT 2600 RE: Inquiry into the status of the human right to freedom of religion or belief 1. The Human Rights Law Alliance and the Australian Christian Lobby welcome this opportunity to make a submission to the Inquiry into the Status of the Human Right to Freedom of Religion or Belief. 2. The Human Rights Law Alliance implements legal strategies to protect and promote fundamental human rights. It does this by resourcing legal cases with funding and expertise to create rights-protecting legal precedents. The Alliance is especially concerned to protect and promote the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion or belief. In the past 12 months, the Alliance has aided more than 20 legal cases, and allied lawyers appeared in State Tribunals and Magistrates, District and Supreme Courts as well as the Federal Court. 3. With more than 80,000 supporters, ACL facilitates professional engagement and dialogue between the Christian constituency and government, allowing the voice of Christians to be heard in the public square. ACL is neither party partisan or denominationally aligned. ACL representatives bring a Christian perspective to policy makers in Federal, State and Territory parliaments. 4. Broadly, the terms of reference invite submissions concerning the status of the right in Australia and around the world.
    [Show full text]
  • Review Essay LIBERTARIAN PATERNALISM IS an OXYMORON
    Copyright 2005 by Northwestern University, School of Law Printed in U.S.A. Northwestern University Uw Review Vol. 99, No. 3 Review Essay LIBERTARIAN PATERNALISM IS AN OXYMORON Gregory Mitchelt I. THE EVITABILITY OF CHOICE-FRAMING PATERNALISM 1248 II. USING PATERNALISM TO MAXIMIZE LIBERTY, NOT WELFARE 1260 III. THE REDISTRIBUTIVE CONSEQUENCES OF LIBERTARIAN PATERNALISM 1269 IV. CONCLUSION 1276 In Libertarian Paternalism Is Not an Oxymoron, Professors Sunstein and Thaler set out to show that state control over the structure of choice op- tions can improve the welfare of citizens without reducing personal auton- omy.' A public or private institution that adopts the perspective of the "libertarian paternalist" will "steer people's choice in directions that will improve the choosers' ovm welfare" but will not prescribe or proscribe any particular choices.^ This limited regulation of choice behavior should be Associate Professor, Florida State University College of Law, and Visiting Associate Professor, University of Virginia School of Law. The author tnay be contacted by e-mail at [email protected] or by regular mail at Florida State University College of Law, 425 West Jefferson Street, Tallahassee, Florida 32306-1601. I appreciate the helpful comments on a draft by participants in the N.Y.U. Collo- quium on Market Institutions and Economic Processes, Amitai Aviram, Paul Edelman, Chris Guthrie, Steve Hetcher, Adam Hirsch, Jon Klick, Mae Kuykendall, Peter Oh, Jim Rossi, Phil Tetlock, Mike Van- denbergh, and particularly Richard Thaler. ' See Cass R. Sunstein & Richard H. Thaler, Libertarian Paternalism ts Not an Oxymoron, 70 U. CHI. L. REV. 1159, 1160 (2003) ("We propose a form of paternalism, libertarian in spirit, that should be acceptable to those who are firmly committed to freedom of choice on grounds of either autonomy or welfare.").
    [Show full text]
  • Religious Freedom and Education in Australian Schools
    laws Article Religious Freedom and Education in Australian Schools Paul Babie Adelaide Law School, The University of Adelaide, Adelaide, SA 5005, Australia; [email protected] Abstract: This article examines the constitutional allocation of power over primary and secondary education in Australia, and the place of and protection for freedom of religion or belief (FoRB) in Australian government and religious non-government schools. This article provides both an overview of the judicial treatment of the constitutional, legislative, and common law protection for FoRB and a consideration of emerging issues in religious freedom in both government and religious non-government schools, suggesting that the courts may soon be required to provide guidance as to how the available protections operate in both settings. Keywords: Australia; education; freedom of religion; constitution; free exercise; section 116; implied freedom of political communication 1. Introduction This article examines the place of and protection for freedom of religion or belief (FoRB) in Australian government primary and secondary education (‘government schools’) 1 and in religious non-government schools. In order to understand that place, it is necessary to outline the legal foundations for education in Australia as well as the protection of FoRB Citation: Babie, Paul. 2021. Religious in Australian law. Australia, like the United States, is a constitutional federal democracy; Freedom and Education in Australian as such, the legal foundations for education involve an uneasy balance of federal (national, Schools. Laws 10: 7. https://doi.org/ or Commonwealth) and state and territory (regional) law and policy. This means that no 10.3390/laws10010007 one unitary source exists for the foundation of government schools, its funding, and for the protection of FoRB.
    [Show full text]