大流行之前和期间的抗议

Q3 Social Sciences
Jeffrey Gordon
{"title":"大流行之前和期间的抗议","authors":"Jeffrey Gordon","doi":"10.1177/0067205X221126557","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Liberal democracies have struggled recently with protecting freedom of speech and assembly during the COVID-19 pandemic. This is an old, general problem in new, specific guise. In Australia, the Supreme Court of New South Wales has been exercising a statutory jurisdiction to ‘authorise’ or ‘prohibit’ proposed public assemblies for 40 years. This article offers the first sustained analysis of the Court’s jurisprudence. After describing the operation of the statutory permit scheme and systematising the case law, this article critiques the Court’s jurisprudence from the perspective of free speech and freedom of assembly. It then argues that there is a puzzle at the heart of the legislative scheme: the conferral of a wide discretion the exercise of which produces a narrow legal order. This puzzle suggests that the legal effect of an authorising or prohibiting order does not exhaust its broader social significance.","PeriodicalId":37273,"journal":{"name":"Federal Law Review","volume":"50 1","pages":"421 - 448"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-10-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Protest Before and During a Pandemic\",\"authors\":\"Jeffrey Gordon\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/0067205X221126557\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Liberal democracies have struggled recently with protecting freedom of speech and assembly during the COVID-19 pandemic. This is an old, general problem in new, specific guise. In Australia, the Supreme Court of New South Wales has been exercising a statutory jurisdiction to ‘authorise’ or ‘prohibit’ proposed public assemblies for 40 years. This article offers the first sustained analysis of the Court’s jurisprudence. After describing the operation of the statutory permit scheme and systematising the case law, this article critiques the Court’s jurisprudence from the perspective of free speech and freedom of assembly. It then argues that there is a puzzle at the heart of the legislative scheme: the conferral of a wide discretion the exercise of which produces a narrow legal order. This puzzle suggests that the legal effect of an authorising or prohibiting order does not exhaust its broader social significance.\",\"PeriodicalId\":37273,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Federal Law Review\",\"volume\":\"50 1\",\"pages\":\"421 - 448\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-10-27\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Federal Law Review\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/0067205X221126557\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"Social Sciences\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Federal Law Review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/0067205X221126557","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

在2019冠状病毒病大流行期间,自由民主国家最近一直在努力保护言论和集会自由。这是一个以新的、特殊的形式出现的老的、普遍的问题。在澳大利亚,新南威尔士州最高法院已经行使了40年的法定管辖权来“批准”或“禁止”拟议的公共集会。本文首次对最高法院的判例进行了持续的分析。在描述了法定许可制度的运作和系统化判例法之后,本文从言论自由和集会自由的角度对法院的判例进行了批判。然后,它认为,在立法方案的核心存在一个难题:授予广泛的自由裁量权,而行使这种自由裁量权会产生狭隘的法律秩序。这个谜题表明,授权或禁止命令的法律效力并没有穷尽其更广泛的社会意义。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Protest Before and During a Pandemic
Liberal democracies have struggled recently with protecting freedom of speech and assembly during the COVID-19 pandemic. This is an old, general problem in new, specific guise. In Australia, the Supreme Court of New South Wales has been exercising a statutory jurisdiction to ‘authorise’ or ‘prohibit’ proposed public assemblies for 40 years. This article offers the first sustained analysis of the Court’s jurisprudence. After describing the operation of the statutory permit scheme and systematising the case law, this article critiques the Court’s jurisprudence from the perspective of free speech and freedom of assembly. It then argues that there is a puzzle at the heart of the legislative scheme: the conferral of a wide discretion the exercise of which produces a narrow legal order. This puzzle suggests that the legal effect of an authorising or prohibiting order does not exhaust its broader social significance.
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
Federal Law Review
Federal Law Review Social Sciences-Law
CiteScore
1.00
自引率
0.00%
发文量
27
×
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