作为政治传播的信仰宣言

Timothy Nugent
{"title":"作为政治传播的信仰宣言","authors":"Timothy Nugent","doi":"10.55803/z910u","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"There is increased interest in legislation that shields some forms of expression not only from the legislature but also from sanctions by powerful private institutions such as social media companies, professional associations, and employers. The Religious Discrimination Bill 2022 (Cth), if passed, would have prohibited ‘qualifying bodies’ from implementing conduct rules that restrict ‘statements of belief’ in their effects. Other provisions of the Bill implicitly provided some protection for ‘religious speech’ within the broader ambit of ‘religious belief or activity’. Using the Religious Discrimination Bill as an example, this paper examines laws that restrict private censure of speech with respect to the implied freedom of political communication. It is argued that laws that limit private censorship of political speech may place a burden upon political communication if they are not constructed in a manner that is ‘viewpoint neutral’. Such laws can thus only be valid if the criteria of ‘compatibility’ and ‘proportionality’ are met (as established in Lange and its progeny). The power imbalance between individuals and large private institutions may warrant limits on private censorship. However, such limits are best framed so as not to discriminate between viewpoints. Laws that protect the expression of particular ideas, such as those based in religious doctrine, must demonstrate a legitimate reason for differential treatment compared to other foundational beliefs.","PeriodicalId":118952,"journal":{"name":"Australian Journal of Law and Religion","volume":"56 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Statements of Belief as Political Communication\",\"authors\":\"Timothy Nugent\",\"doi\":\"10.55803/z910u\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"There is increased interest in legislation that shields some forms of expression not only from the legislature but also from sanctions by powerful private institutions such as social media companies, professional associations, and employers. The Religious Discrimination Bill 2022 (Cth), if passed, would have prohibited ‘qualifying bodies’ from implementing conduct rules that restrict ‘statements of belief’ in their effects. Other provisions of the Bill implicitly provided some protection for ‘religious speech’ within the broader ambit of ‘religious belief or activity’. Using the Religious Discrimination Bill as an example, this paper examines laws that restrict private censure of speech with respect to the implied freedom of political communication. It is argued that laws that limit private censorship of political speech may place a burden upon political communication if they are not constructed in a manner that is ‘viewpoint neutral’. Such laws can thus only be valid if the criteria of ‘compatibility’ and ‘proportionality’ are met (as established in Lange and its progeny). The power imbalance between individuals and large private institutions may warrant limits on private censorship. However, such limits are best framed so as not to discriminate between viewpoints. Laws that protect the expression of particular ideas, such as those based in religious doctrine, must demonstrate a legitimate reason for differential treatment compared to other foundational beliefs.\",\"PeriodicalId\":118952,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Australian Journal of Law and Religion\",\"volume\":\"56 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"1900-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Australian Journal of Law and Religion\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.55803/z910u\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Australian Journal of Law and Religion","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.55803/z910u","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

人们越来越有兴趣通过立法保护某些形式的言论,不仅不受立法机构的制裁,还不受社交媒体公司、专业协会和雇主等强大私人机构的制裁。《2022年宗教歧视法案》(Cth)如果获得通过,将禁止“合格机构”实施限制“信仰声明”的行为规则。该法案的其他条款在更广泛的“宗教信仰或活动”范围内隐含地为“宗教言论”提供了一些保护。本文以《宗教歧视法案》为例,从隐含的政治传播自由的角度考察了限制私人言论谴责的法律。有人认为,限制私人审查政治言论的法律,如果不是以“观点中立”的方式构建,可能会给政治传播带来负担。因此,这些定律只有在满足“相容性”和“比例性”的标准(如兰格及其后代所建立的)时才有效。个人和大型私人机构之间的权力不平衡可能需要限制私人审查。然而,这样的限制最好是为了不区分不同的观点。保护特定思想表达的法律,例如基于宗教教义的思想,必须证明与其他基本信仰相比有区别对待的正当理由。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Statements of Belief as Political Communication
There is increased interest in legislation that shields some forms of expression not only from the legislature but also from sanctions by powerful private institutions such as social media companies, professional associations, and employers. The Religious Discrimination Bill 2022 (Cth), if passed, would have prohibited ‘qualifying bodies’ from implementing conduct rules that restrict ‘statements of belief’ in their effects. Other provisions of the Bill implicitly provided some protection for ‘religious speech’ within the broader ambit of ‘religious belief or activity’. Using the Religious Discrimination Bill as an example, this paper examines laws that restrict private censure of speech with respect to the implied freedom of political communication. It is argued that laws that limit private censorship of political speech may place a burden upon political communication if they are not constructed in a manner that is ‘viewpoint neutral’. Such laws can thus only be valid if the criteria of ‘compatibility’ and ‘proportionality’ are met (as established in Lange and its progeny). The power imbalance between individuals and large private institutions may warrant limits on private censorship. However, such limits are best framed so as not to discriminate between viewpoints. Laws that protect the expression of particular ideas, such as those based in religious doctrine, must demonstrate a legitimate reason for differential treatment compared to other foundational beliefs.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信