Legal History Commons^™

Does It Matter How One Opposes Memory Bans? A Commentary On Liberte Pour L'Histoire, Robert Kahn

Robert Kahn

This paper examines Liberté pour l'Histoire, a group of French historians who led the charge against that nation’s memory laws, in the process raising unique arguments not found elsewhere in the debate over hate speech regulation. Some of these arguments – such as a focus on how the constitutional structure of the Fifth Republic encouraged memory laws – advance our understanding of the connection between hate speech bans and political institutions. Other arguments, however, are more problematic. In particular, Liberté historians struggle to distinguish the Holocaust (which is illegal to deny) from the Armenian Genocide (which is not). The Liberté …

Homeschooling As A Constitutional Right: A Claim Under A Close Look At Meyer And Pierce And The Lochner-Based Assumptions They Made About State Regulatory Power, David M. Wagner

David N. Wagner

In 2012, a German family of would-be homeschoolers, the Romeikes, fled to the U.S. to escape fines and child removal for this practice, which has been illegal in Germany since 1938. The Sixth Circuit, in denying their asylum request, conspicuously did not slam the door on the possibility that if the Romeikes were U.S. citizens, they might have a right to homeschool. This article takes up that question, and argues that Meyer and Pierce, the classic cases constitutionalizing the right to use private schools, point beyond those holdings towards a right to homeschool; and that the permissible state regulations on …

Cross, Crucifix, Culture: An Approach To The Constitutional Meaning Of Confessional Symbols, Frederick Mark Gedicks, Pasquale Annicchino

Frederick Mark Gedicks

In the United States and Europe the constitutionality of government displays of confessional symbols depends on whether the symbols also have nonconfessional secular meaning (in the U.S.) or whether the confessional meaning is somehow absent (in Europe). Yet both the United States Supreme Court (USSCt) and the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) lack a workable approach to determining whether secular meaning is present or confessional meaning absent. The problem is that the government can nearly always articulate a possible secular meaning for the confessional symbols that it uses, or argue that the confessional meaning is passive and ineffective. What …

The Recognition Of Indigenous Peoples’ Land: Application Of The Customary Land Rights Model On The Bedouin Case, Morad Elsana

Morad Elsana

ABSTRACT This paper introduces new possibilities for the recognition of Bedouin land in Israel. It shows that the application of the prevalent methods of indigenous land recognition is possible in the Bedouin case, and it would bring legal recognition of Bedouin land rights. The paper first presents the recognition of indigenous peoples land right in Canada, Australia, and other countries, while concentrating on the native title doctrine and the adoption of indigenous customary law. It shows how many colonial legal systems eventually discovered that their judicial systems included principles that recognize indigenous customary land rights. The application of such principles …

Why Do Europeans Ban Hate Speech? A Debate Between Karl Loewenstein And Robert Post, Robert Kahn

Robert Kahn

European countries restrict hate speech, the United States does not. This much is clear. What explains this difference? Too often the current discussion falls back on a culturally rich but normatively vacant exceptionalism (American or otherwise) or a normatively driven convergence perspective that fails to address historical, cultural and experiential differences that distinguish countries and legal systems. Inspired by the development discourse of historical sociology, this article seeks to record instances where Americans or Europeans have argued their approach to hate speech laws was more “advanced” or “modern.”

To that end this article focuses on two authors whose writing appears …