Law Commons^™

Dignity Versus Liberty: The Two Western Cultures Of Free Speech, Guy E. Carmi

Guy E Carmi

This Article offers an original comparative model for assessing freedom of expression among Western democracies through the combined lenses of human dignity and liberty. Such a new model is necessary because of two fundamental flaws in our current understanding of free expression: incoherence and inaccurate terminology.

This Article addresses the pervasive confusion of free expression terminology by first establishing a concrete theoretical framework for the meaning of human dignity and liberty. This makes possible a coherent discussion of freedom of expression across legal systems.

This Article next challenges the adequacy of Robert Post’s Constitutional Domains model as a comparative free …

Dignity - The Enemy From Within: A Theoretical And Comparative Analysis Of Human Dignity As A Free Speech Justification, Guy E. Carmi

Guy E Carmi

This Article challenges the use of human dignity as an independent free speech justification. The articulation of free speech in human dignity terms carries unwarranted potential consequences that may result in limiting free speech rather than protecting it. This possible outcome makes human dignity inadequate as a free speech justification.

This Article also demonstrates why articulations of the rationales behind the argument from dignity are either superfluous, since they are aptly covered by the argument from autonomy, or simply too broad and speech-restrictive to be considered free speech justifications. As a matter of principle, the nexus between freedom of speech …

A Constitutional Court In The Absence Of A Formal Constitution? On The Ramifications Of Appointing The Israeli Supreme Court As The Only Tribunal For Judicial Review, Guy E. Carmi

Guy E Carmi

This manuscript reviews an emerging debate in Israel regarding the appointment of the Supreme Court as a Constitutional Court. Specifically, it offers a critical analysis of the most recent proposed model, which is now in the initial legislative stages (The “Neeman Committee”), to appoint the Supreme Court as the sole constitutional arbiter.

First, the article offers an overview of the main processes that have occurred in the arena of Israeli constitutional law in the last decade, generally known as the “Constitutional Revolution.” Next, the article shows the nexus between this process and the revival of the constitutional court debate. Readers …