- User contributions [en]

Freedom of Religion/History/Country sources/Haiti

2024-08-04T22:54:39Z

Kj47:

{{Right section
|right=Freedom of Expression
|section=History
|question=Country sources
|questionHeading=What is the oldest written source in this country that mentions this right?
|breakout=Haiti
|pageLevel=Breakout
|contents=Haiti’s establishment of independence from France following the Haitian Revolution manifested in the 1806 Constitution. Revised in 1816, the Constitution stated, “No one can be hindered from telling, writing or publishing his opinions.” This tradition continued through the 19th and 20th century, with the 1987 Constitution of the Republic of Haiti stating that all Haitains have the right to express opinions, and censorship is only allowed in times of war. Following the regime changes in the 2020s, there are circulating Draft Constitutions of the Independent Advisory Committee.

References
English Translation of the French Text of the Constitution of 1806, as Amended to 1816, 64 (2014) https://heinonline.org/HOL/Page?collection=cow&handle=hein.cow/zzht0060&id=3&men_tab=srchresults

English original text of the Constitution of 1987, 8 (2017) https://heinonline.org/HOL/Page?collection=cow&handle=hein.cow/zzht0028&id=9&men_tab=srchresults
}}

Freedom of Religion/History/Country sources/Guatemala

2024-08-04T22:52:47Z

Kj47:

{{Right section
|right=Freedom of Expression
|section=History
|question=Country sources
|questionHeading=What is the oldest written source in this country that mentions this right?
|breakout=Guatemala
|pageLevel=Breakout
|contents=The 1823 Constitutional Bases mentioned freedom of thought, which was officially installed as a right in the 1825 First Constitution the State of Guatemala in Article 25. The pattern of short, turbulent regimes during the 20th century manifested in numerous constitutions, all of which guaranteed freedom of expression and opinion. Most recently, the Political Constitution of the Republic of Guatemala from 1985/86 grants freedom of expression “through any means of dissemination, without censorship or prior permission.”

References
English translation of the Spanish original text of the fundamental law of 1823, 114 (2017) https://heinonline.org/HOL/Page?collection=cow&handle=hein.cow/zzgt0103&id=4&men_tab=srchresults

English translation of the Spanish orignal text of the Constitution of 1825, 117 (2017) https://heinonline.org/HOL/Page?handle=hein.cow/zzgt0100&id=2&collection=cow&index=

English Translation of the Spanish Original Text of the Constitution of 1985/86, 10 (1986) https://heinonline.org/HOL/Page?collection=cow&handle=hein.cow/zzgt0106&id=10&men_tab=srchresults
}}

Freedom of Religion/History/Country sources/Greece

2024-08-04T22:51:39Z

Kj47:

{{Right section
|right=Freedom of Expression
|section=History
|question=Country sources
|questionHeading=What is the oldest written source in this country that mentions this right?
|breakout=Greece
|pageLevel=Breakout
|contents=The 10th Article of the 1844 Greek Constitution cedes the right to free verbal and written expression. Notably, it restricts access to the position of newspaper editor to only Greek citizens. This designation is not changed until the 1975 Constitution of Greece designates free expression in Article 14, except in the cases of attempts to overthrow the government, criticize the President, or make offensive remarks against Christianity or another religion.

References
English translation of the Greek original text of the Constitution of 1844, 6 (1844) https://heinonline.org/HOL/Page?collection=cow&handle=hein.cow/zzgr0044&id=6&men_tab=srchresults

English translation of the Greek original text of the Constitution of 1975, 14 (2011) https://heinonline.org/HOL/Page?collection=cow&handle=hein.cow/zzgr0016&id=12&men_tab=srchresults
}}

Freedom of Religion/History/Country sources/Gabon

2024-08-04T22:49:56Z

Kj47:

{{Right section
|right=Freedom of Expression
|section=History
|question=Country sources
|questionHeading=What is the oldest written source in this country that mentions this right?
|breakout=Gabon
|pageLevel=Breakout
|contents=Following independence from France, Gabon’s 1959 Constitution did not explicitly grant freedom of expression. The 2nd Republic’s 1961 Constitution drew ideas from the 1789 Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen and from the 1948 Universal Declaration Of the Rights of Man. It added, “Everyone has the right to the free development of his personality, within the limits of respect for the rights of others and for the public order.” Moreover, the 3rd Republic’s 1991 Constitution expanded upon this conception of the freedom of expression to include “the freedom of conscience, of thought, of opinion, of expression, of communication, the free practice of religion,” based on the 1981 African Charter of the Rights of Man and of Peoples and the 1990 National Charter of Freedoms.

References
English Translation of the French Official Original Text of the Constitution of 1959, 3 (2022) https://heinonline.org/HOL/Page?handle=hein.cow/zzga0042&id=3&collection=cow&index=

English translation of the French original text of the Constitution of 1961, 194 (2017) https://heinonline.org/HOL/Page?handle=hein.cow/zzga0032&collection=cow

English Translation of the French Original Text of the Constitution of 1991, 3 (2022) https://heinonline.org/HOL/Page?collection=cow&handle=hein.cow/zzga0054&id=3&men_tab=srchresults
}}

Freedom of Religion/History/Country sources/France

2024-08-04T22:49:22Z

Kj47:

{{Right section
|right=Freedom of Expression
|section=History
|question=Country sources
|questionHeading=What is the oldest written source in this country that mentions this right?
|breakout=France
|pageLevel=Breakout
|contents=France laid the groundwork for inalienable rights to freedom of expression through the Declaration of the Rights of Man, and of the Citizen. Article 11 of this 1789 document states, “The free communication of ideas and of opinion is one of the most precious rights of man.” The 1791 French Constitution utilized this phrasing in its 11th Article to enshrine freedom of expression, and continues this tradition of citing the Rights of Man in the 1958 Constitution.

References
English translation of the French original text of the Declaration of 1789, 2 (2010)
Declaration of the Rights of Man and Citizen, 1789 https://heinonline.org/HOL/Page?collection=cow&handle=hein.cow/zzfr0143&id=2&men_tab=srchresults

English translation of the French original text of the Constitution of 1791, 60 (2010) https://heinonline.org/HOL/Page?collection=cow&handle=hein.cow/zzfr0138&id=3&men_tab=srchresults

English original text of the Constitution of 1958, together with the Preamble of 1946, 77 (2010) https://heinonline.org/HOL/Page?handle=hein.cow/zzfr0147&id=3&collection=cow&index=
}}

Freedom of Religion/History/Country sources/Finland

2024-08-04T22:48:16Z

Kj47:

{{Right section
|right=Freedom of Expression
|section=History
|question=Country sources
|questionHeading=What is the oldest written source in this country that mentions this right?
|breakout=Finland
|pageLevel=Breakout
|contents=According to Article 10 of the 1919 Form of Government, Finland protects the freedom of speech and the freedom to publish without restraint, although it does not explicitly state the freedom of expression. The 1999/2000 Constitution grants freedom of expression to all Finnish citizens, including “the right to express, disseminate, and receive information, opinions, and other communications without prior prevention by anyone.” There are limits to this freedom, such as to protect children or classified cases.

References
English translation of the French official translation of the original text of the Constitution of 17 July 1919. 469 (2010) https://heinonline.org/HOL/Page?handle=hein.cow/zzfi0005&id=2&collection=cow&index=

English translation Finnish original official text of the Constitution of 1999/2000. 3 (2017) https://heinonline.org/HOL/Page?collection=cow&handle=hein.cow/zzfi0015&id=3&men_tab=srchresults
}}

Freedom of Religion/History/Country sources/Kantianism

2024-08-03T01:41:26Z

Kj47:

{{Right section
|right=Freedom of Religion
|section=Philosophical Origins
|question=Tradition contributions
|questionHeading=What have religious and philosophical traditions contributed to our understanding of this right?
|breakout=Kantianism
|pageLevel=Breakout
|contents=Kantianism influences conceptualizations about freedom of religion through an emphasis on the fundamental principle of autonomy in fostering religious liberty. Although he is often regarded as a secular philosopher and did not dedicate entire treatises explicitly about freedom of religion like many other Enlightenment philosophers such as Voltaire or Locke, his philosophical theories address the roots of inalienable rights. In particular, his 1793 Theory and Practice and his 1792 Religion within the Limits of Reason Alone provide insight into his thoughts on freedom of religion. Examining his notions of autonomy, the role of rationality in religious belief, and the function of the state in ensuring individual rights offers deeper understanding of the moral significance of freedom.

Kant’s principle focus on the concept of autonomy underscores his belief in the right to religious liberty and morality. To Kant, freedom is the basis of all actions. Thus, freedom of religion should inherently be granted to everyone – morally and legally – as religion is an assertion of moral agency. Which religious tradition is practiced is not as important as the level of choice one has in practicing it. Therefore, “It is freedom that sanctions religion, not religion that sanctions freedom” and “when a clash between freedom and religion takes place, it is religion that has to step aside” (Klein 2018, 37). Individual liberty in choosing or not choosing a religion is more important than allowing for religion to be practiced in a society. In his 1793 essay Theory and Practice Kant explains, “No-one can compel me to be happy in accordance with his conception of the welfare of others, for each may seek his happiness in whatever way he sees fit, so long as he does not infringe upon the freedom of others to pursue a similar end which can be reconciled with the freedom of everyone else within a workable general law – i.e. he must accord to others the same right as he enjoys himself” (Kant 1793). It can be interpreted from this statement that religion is an individual choice that can develop one’s greater morality and happiness, and therefore is an autonomous decision so long as it does not impose on others. As a secular philosopher, Kant did not speculate much about beliefs within religious traditions, but he did talk about the development of good and evil. He stated, “Man himself must make or have made himself into whatever, in a moral sense, whether good or evil, he is or is to become. Either condition must be an effect of his free choice; for otherwise he could not be held responsible for it and could therefore be morally neither good nor evil” (Kant 1793). No higher power defines one’s sense of self nor one’s ability to express this morality; this is an agentic stance on the responsibility that accompanies freedom.

Kant utilized rational thought to understand humanity and therefore analyzed religion within a logical framework. His 1792 work Religion within the Limits of Reason Alone examined how religion would fit within his world of ethics (MacKinnon 1975, 132). His disinterest in learning about religion alone is elaborated on: “It is not that he regarded the questions on which devoutly religious men and women differed from one another as trivial or even as impossible of settlement. It is rather that he supposed the moral outrage committed by any attempt to impose one set of beliefs against another as more evident than any of the competing systems” (MacKinnon 1975, 134). Again, he believed moral principles like autonomy were more influential in moral agency than religious beliefs themselves. Logically then, he concluded that “if any form of religion is to be acknowledged valid, it can only be one that does not dispute this sovereignty” (Mackinnon 1975, 134). Holding sovereignty over one’s choices is more critical to a society than the sovereignty and validity of religious traditions.

In terms of the role of the State in enshrining the right to freedom of religion, Kant believed in the infrastructure of laws to grant autonomy. Religious liberty could be treated as a political concept, as it can be regarded as “an immediate consequence of every human’s innate right to freedom, which is both the objective but also the limit of all state power” (Guyer 2020, 276). Kant was both a liberal and a republican, creating a duality in how he views protection of freedom. Based on the former stance, scholars have presumed he thought that freedom of religion is an inalienable right; based on the latter stance, he could have understood that this right must be actively and institutionally protected through law (Klein 2018, 37). The one condition that Kant speculated about was the imposition of religion on others. He concluded that freedom of religion is not equally granted to those who “fail to grant the same moral rights to others” (Klein 2018, 37). If a group fails to respect another religion and imposes discriminatory laws against them, that group should no longer be afforded the freedom to practice their religion either. Freedom of religion is contingent upon everyone respecting the moral value of this right. There is a fine line, however, between state protection and state imposition. The acceptance of religious pluralism is crucial to maintaining everyone’s agency. Political leaders do not have the right to impose or favor a certain religion. As a general principle, “whatever a people cannot impose upon itself cannot be imposed upon it by the legislator either” (Kant 1793).

Kant’s thoughts on religious intolerance stems from the morality of practicing a faith. Scholars posit three criteria for fostering religious tolerance; non-coercive force of religious beliefs, truthfulness about the practices, and the capacity to be a public religion (Klein 2018, 25). Non-coercive force of religious belief surrounds Kant’s idea that religion must be theoretically and morally separate from force; truthfulness regarding matters of faith involves providing freedom to ourselves and to others by not lying to them about faith so they may make autonomous, informed decisions; publicity of the religion relates to the capacity for people to legally exist and to foster public education in order to expand institutionally. Meeting these conditions promotes freedom of religion in the public sphere, simultaneously encouraging religion to be free from government interference while also being protected in a legal framework. If a group becomes intolerant of other religions or attempts to impose its own beliefs on others, it may not be granted the same freedoms (Klein 2018). Tolerance must precede freedom of religion.

Overall, Kant’s philosophy provides a robust framework for understanding freedom of religion through the lenses of autonomy, rationality, and moral law. His arguments for the enshrinement of freedom of religion surround debates over morality and agency. By protecting the right to exercise religion and promoting religious tolerance, Kant supports a pluralistic society that is governed by rationality and harmonious respect.

References

Guyer, P. “Freedom of Religion in Mendelssohn and Kant” in Reason and Experience in Mendlessohn and Kant. Oxford Academic (2020): 276-301. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198850335.003.0011.

Kant, I. Religion within the Limits of Reason Alone. 1792. https://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/ethics/kant/religion/religion-within-reason.htm.

Kant, I. Theory and Practice. 1793. https://users.sussex.ac.uk/~sefd0/tx/tp2.htm.

Klein, J. “Kant on Religious Intolerance.” Philosophica, 51 (2018): 25-38. https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/286788933.pdf.

Pasternack, L. and Fugate, C. “Kant’s Philosophy of Religion.” The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (2022). https://plato.stanford.edu/cgi-bin/encyclopedia/archinfo.cgi?entry=kant-religion.

Pera, M. “Kant on Politics, Religion, and Secularism” in Universal Rights in a World of Diversity (2012): 546-676. https://www.pass.va/content/dam/casinapioiv/pass/pdf-volumi/acta/acta17pass.pdf#page=529.

MacKinnon, D. M. “Kant’s Philosophy of Religion.” Philosophy 50, no. 192 (1975): 131–44. http://www.jstor.org/stable/3749503.
}}

Freedom of Religion/History/Country sources/Kantianism

2024-08-02T20:57:56Z

Kj47:

{{Right section
|right=Freedom of Expression
|section=Philosophical Origins
|question=Tradition contributions
|questionHeading=What have religious and philosophical traditions contributed to our understanding of this right?
|breakout=Kantianism
|pageLevel=Breakout
|contents=Kantianism influences conceptualizations about freedom of religion through an emphasis on the fundamental principle of autonomy in fostering religious liberty. Although he is often regarded as a secular philosopher and did not dedicate entire treatises explicitly about freedom of religion like many other Enlightenment philosophers such as Voltaire or Locke, his philosophical theories address the roots of inalienable rights. In particular, his 1793 Theory and Practice and his 1792 Religion within the Limits of Reason Alone provide insight into his thoughts on freedom of religion. Examining his notions of autonomy, the role of rationality in religious belief, and the function of the state in ensuring individual rights offers deeper understanding of the moral significance of freedom.

Kant’s principle focus on the concept of autonomy underscores his belief in the right to religious liberty and morality. To Kant, freedom is the basis of all actions. Thus, freedom of religion should inherently be granted to everyone – morally and legally – as religion is an assertion of moral agency. Which religious tradition is practiced is not as important as the level of choice one has in practicing it. Therefore, “It is freedom that sanctions religion, not religion that sanctions freedom” and “when a clash between freedom and religion takes place, it is religion that has to step aside” (Klein 2018, 37). Individual liberty in choosing or not choosing a religion is more important than allowing for religion to be practiced in a society. In his 1793 essay Theory and Practice Kant explains, “No-one can compel me to be happy in accordance with his conception of the welfare of others, for each may seek his happiness in whatever way he sees fit, so long as he does not infringe upon the freedom of others to pursue a similar end which can be reconciled with the freedom of everyone else within a workable general law – i.e. he must accord to others the same right as he enjoys himself” (Kant 1793). It can be interpreted from this statement that religion is an individual choice that can develop one’s greater morality and happiness, and therefore is an autonomous decision so long as it does not impose on others. As a secular philosopher, Kant did not speculate much about beliefs within religious traditions, but he did talk about the development of good and evil. He stated, “Man himself must make or have made himself into whatever, in a moral sense, whether good or evil, he is or is to become. Either condition must be an effect of his free choice; for otherwise he could not be held responsible for it and could therefore be morally neither good nor evil” (Kant 1793). No higher power defines one’s sense of self nor one’s ability to express this morality; this is an agentic stance on the responsibility that accompanies freedom.

Kant utilized rational thought to understand humanity and therefore analyzed religion within a logical framework. His 1792 work Religion within the Limits of Reason Alone examined how religion would fit within his world of ethics (MacKinnon 1975, 132). His disinterest in learning about religion alone is elaborated on: “It is not that he regarded the questions on which devoutly religious men and women differed from one another as trivial or even as impossible of settlement. It is rather that he supposed the moral outrage committed by any attempt to impose one set of beliefs against another as more evident than any of the competing systems” (MacKinnon 1975, 134). Again, he believed moral principles like autonomy were more influential in moral agency than religious beliefs themselves. Logically then, he concluded that “if any form of religion is to be acknowledged valid, it can only be one that does not dispute this sovereignty” (Mackinnon 1975, 134). Holding sovereignty over one’s choices is more critical to a society than the sovereignty and validity of religious traditions.

In terms of the role of the State in enshrining the right to freedom of religion, Kant believed in the infrastructure of laws to grant autonomy. Religious liberty could be treated as a political concept, as it can be regarded as “an immediate consequence of every human’s innate right to freedom, which is both the objective but also the limit of all state power” (Guyer 2020, 276). Kant was both a liberal and a republican, creating a duality in how he views protection of freedom. Based on the former stance, scholars have presumed he thought that freedom of religion is an inalienable right; based on the latter stance, he could have understood that this right must be actively and institutionally protected through law (Klein 2018, 37). The one condition that Kant speculated about was the imposition of religion on others. He concluded that freedom of religion is not equally granted to those who “fail to grant the same moral rights to others” (Klein 2018, 37). If a group fails to respect another religion and imposes discriminatory laws against them, that group should no longer be afforded the freedom to practice their religion either. Freedom of religion is contingent upon everyone respecting the moral value of this right. There is a fine line, however, between state protection and state imposition. The acceptance of religious pluralism is crucial to maintaining everyone’s agency. Political leaders do not have the right to impose or favor a certain religion. As a general principle, “whatever a people cannot impose upon itself cannot be imposed upon it by the legislator either” (Kant 1793).

Kant’s thoughts on religious intolerance stems from the morality of practicing a faith. Scholars posit three criteria for fostering religious tolerance; non-coercive force of religious beliefs, truthfulness about the practices, and the capacity to be a public religion (Klein 2018, 25). Non-coercive force of religious belief surrounds Kant’s idea that religion must be theoretically and morally separate from force; truthfulness regarding matters of faith involves providing freedom to ourselves and to others by not lying to them about faith so they may make autonomous, informed decisions; publicity of the religion relates to the capacity for people to legally exist and to foster public education in order to expand institutionally. Meeting these conditions promotes freedom of religion in the public sphere, simultaneously encouraging religion to be free from government interference while also being protected in a legal framework. If a group becomes intolerant of other religions or attempts to impose its own beliefs on others, it may not be granted the same freedoms (Klein 2018). Tolerance must precede freedom of religion.

Overall, Kant’s philosophy provides a robust framework for understanding freedom of religion through the lenses of autonomy, rationality, and moral law. His arguments for the enshrinement of freedom of religion surround debates over morality and agency. By protecting the right to exercise religion and promoting religious tolerance, Kant supports a pluralistic society that is governed by rationality and harmonious respect.

References

Guyer, P. “Freedom of Religion in Mendelssohn and Kant” in Reason and Experience in Mendlessohn and Kant. Oxford Academic (2020): 276-301. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198850335.003.0011.

Kant, I. Religion within the Limits of Reason Alone. 1792. https://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/ethics/kant/religion/religion-within-reason.htm.

Kant, I. Theory and Practice. 1793. https://users.sussex.ac.uk/~sefd0/tx/tp2.htm.

Klein, J. “Kant on Religious Intolerance.” Philosophica, 51 (2018): 25-38. https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/286788933.pdf.

Pasternack, L. and Fugate, C. “Kant’s Philosophy of Religion.” The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (2022). https://plato.stanford.edu/cgi-bin/encyclopedia/archinfo.cgi?entry=kant-religion.

Pera, M. “Kant on Politics, Religion, and Secularism” in Universal Rights in a World of Diversity (2012): 546-676. https://www.pass.va/content/dam/casinapioiv/pass/pdf-volumi/acta/acta17pass.pdf#page=529.

MacKinnon, D. M. “Kant’s Philosophy of Religion.” Philosophy 50, no. 192 (1975): 131–44. http://www.jstor.org/stable/3749503.
}}

Freedom of Religion/History/Country sources/Laos

2024-08-02T20:52:40Z

Kj47:

{{Right section
|right=Freedom of Expression
|section=History
|question=Country sources
|questionHeading=What is the oldest written source in this country that mentions this right?
|breakout=Laos
|pageLevel=Breakout
|contents=The 1991 Constitution of the Lao People’s Democratic Republic does not formally protect freedom of expression, but does grant the right to free speech and press in Article 31. This freedom was not stated in the original 1947 Constitution.

References
Constitution of the Lao People’s Democratic Republic, 40 (1991).
}}

Freedom of Religion/History/Country sources/Kyrgyzstan

2024-08-02T20:51:54Z

Kj47:

{{Right section
|right=Freedom of Expression
|section=History
|question=Country sources
|questionHeading=What is the oldest written source in this country that mentions this right?
|breakout=Kyrgyzstan
|pageLevel=Breakout
|contents=Kyrgyzstan’s 1998 amended version of the 1993 Constitution secures freedom of expression in Article 16 for all those residing in the state. This right continues to be protected with Article 32 of the 2021 Constitution. However, it does prohibit “propaganda of national, racial, religious hatred, gender and other social superiority.”

References
English translation of the Constitution of 1993 as amended to 21 October 1998, 6 (2021) https://heinonline.org/HOL/Page?collection=cow&handle=hein.cow/zzkg0006&id=6&men_tab=srchresults

English Translation of the Constitution of 2021, Adopted by the Referendum of 11 April 2021, 9 (2021) https://heinonline.org/HOL/Page?collection=cow&handle=hein.cow/zzkg0041&id=9&men_tab=srchresults
}}

Freedom of Religion/History/Country sources/Kuwait

2024-08-02T20:51:07Z

Kj47:

{{Right section
|right=Freedom of Expression
|section=History
|question=Country sources
|questionHeading=What is the oldest written source in this country that mentions this right?
|breakout=Kuwait
|pageLevel=Breakout
|contents=Kuwait’s 1962 Constitution grants “freedom of opinion and scientific research” in Article 36. Prior Orders of Council did not explicitly grant these freedoms.

References
English original text of the Constitution of 1962, 13 (2009) https://heinonline.org/HOL/Page?collection=cow&handle=hein.cow/zzkw0002&id=13&men_tab=srchresults
}}

Freedom of Religion/History/Country sources/Indonesia

2024-08-02T20:50:33Z

Kj47:

{{Right section
|right=Freedom of Expression
|section=History
|question=Country sources
|questionHeading=What is the oldest written source in this country that mentions this right?
|breakout=Indonesia
|pageLevel=Breakout
|contents=The 1964 Provisional Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia guarantees freedom of expression to all in Article 19.

References
R.; Jones Supomo, Garth N., Translator. Provisional Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia (1964) https://heinonline.org/HOL/Page?collection=cow&handle=hein.cow/proconindo0001&id=29&men_tab=srchresults
}}

Freedom of Religion/History/Country sources/India

2024-08-02T20:49:57Z

Kj47:

{{Right section
|right=Freedom of Expression
|section=History
|question=Country sources
|questionHeading=What is the oldest written source in this country that mentions this right?
|breakout=India
|pageLevel=Breakout
|contents=Following independence from Britain, India created its draft constitution in 1948, which was the first document to grant Indians freedom of speech and expression. This right was reaffirmed in the 1949/50 Constitution.

The Constitution of India was ratified on November 29, 1949. Articles 15, 16.2, 23.2, 25, 26, 27, 29.2, 30, and 325 grant religious Freedom, equality, and prohibit religious discrimination. Article 371 grants special religious protections throughout various states and religions of India.

Article 25 Section 1 states that “[s]ubject to public order, morality and health and to the other provisions of this Part, all persons are equally entitled to freedom of conscience and the right freely to profess, practise and propagate religion” (constituteproject.org). According to the US Department of State in 2021, “ten of 28 states have laws restricting religious conversions. Four state governments have laws imposing penalties against so-called forced religious conversions for the purpose of marriage…” (state.gov).

References

Constituent Assembly. “The Constitution of India.” Government of India. Department of Legislation , November 26, 2021. Last modified November 26, 2021. Accessed June 14, 2022. https://legislative.gov.in/sites/default/files/COI...pdf.

English original text of the Draft Constitution of 1948, 652 (2011) https://heinonline.org/HOL/Page?collection=cow&handle=hein.cow/zzin0011&id=4&men_tab=srchresults

English original text of the Constitution of 1949, 39 (2011) https://heinonline.org/HOL/Page?collection=cow&handle=hein.cow/zzin0012&id=6&men_tab=srchresults

“India - United States Department of State.” U.S. Department of State, June 10, 2022. https://www.state.gov/reports/2021-report-on-international-religious-freedom/india/.

“India 1949 (Rev. 2016) Constitution.” Constitute. Accessed July 21, 2023. https://www.constituteproject.org/constitution/India_2016.
}}

Freedom of Religion/History/Country sources/India

2024-08-02T20:49:00Z

Kj47:

{{Right section
|right=Freedom of Religion
|section=History
|question=Country sources
|questionHeading=What is the oldest written source in this country that mentions this right?
|breakout=India
|pageLevel=Breakout
|contents=The Constitution of India was ratified on November 29, 1949. Articles 15, 16.2, 23.2, 25, 26, 27, 29.2, 30, and 325 grant religious Freedom, equality, and prohibit religious discrimination. Article 371 grants special religious protections throughout various states and religions of India.

Article 25 Section 1 states that “[s]ubject to public order, morality and health and to the other provisions of this Part, all persons are equally entitled to freedom of conscience and the right freely to profess, practise and propagate religion” (constituteproject.org). According to the US Department of State in 2021, “ten of 28 states have laws restricting religious conversions. Four state governments have laws imposing penalties against so-called forced religious conversions for the purpose of marriage…” (state.gov).

Following independence from Britain, India created its draft constitution in 1948, which was the first document to grant Indians freedom of speech and expression. This right was reaffirmed in the 1949/50 Constitution.

References

Constituent Assembly. “The Constitution of India.” Government of India. Department of Legislation , November 26, 2021. Last modified November 26, 2021. Accessed June 14, 2022. https://legislative.gov.in/sites/default/files/COI...pdf.

English original text of the Draft Constitution of 1948, 652 (2011) https://heinonline.org/HOL/Page?collection=cow&handle=hein.cow/zzin0011&id=4&men_tab=srchresults

English original text of the Constitution of 1949, 39 (2011) https://heinonline.org/HOL/Page?collection=cow&handle=hein.cow/zzin0012&id=6&men_tab=srchresults

“India - United States Department of State.” U.S. Department of State, June 10, 2022. https://www.state.gov/reports/2021-report-on-international-religious-freedom/india/.

“India 1949 (Rev. 2016) Constitution.” Constitute. Accessed July 21, 2023. https://www.constituteproject.org/constitution/India_2016.
}}

Freedom of Religion/History/Country sources/Iceland

2024-08-02T20:47:28Z

Kj47:

{{Right section
|right=Freedom of Expression
|section=History
|question=Country sources
|questionHeading=What is the oldest written source in this country that mentions this right?
|breakout=Iceland
|pageLevel=Breakout
|contents=The 54th Article of the 1874 Constitutional Law for the Special Affairs of Iceland guaranteed freedom of opinion in print. Interestingly, it also stipulated that no restrictive measures or attempts at censorship “can ever be introduced.” Thus, the 1944 Constitution of the Republic of Iceland still protects this freedom and restricts attempts to undo it.

References
British and Foreign State Papers (1873-1874). https://heinonline.org/HOL/Page?collection=cow&handle=hein.cow/bfsprs0065&id=1005&men_tab=srchresults

British and Foreign State Papers (1943-1945). https://heinonline.org/HOL/Page?collection=cow&handle=hein.cow/bfsprs0145&id=614&men_tab=srchresults
}}

Freedom of Religion/History/Country sources/Hungary

2024-08-02T20:46:42Z

Kj47:

{{Right section
|right=Freedom of Expression
|section=History
|question=Country sources
|questionHeading=What is the oldest written source in this country that mentions this right?
|breakout=Hungary
|pageLevel=Breakout
|contents=Hungary’s declaration of independence in 1791 included freedom of expression through the press in Article 1 of Law 18. During its time as a Communist nation, it granted freedom of press, speech, and assembly — but not explicitly expression. The current Fundamental Law of Hungary guarantees freedom of expression in Article 9.

References
Herbert F. Wright. Constitutions of the States at War 1914-1918 (1919). https://heinonline.org/HOL/Page?collection=cow&handle=hein.cow/stwar0001&id=41&men_tab=srchresults

English translation of the Hungarian original text of the Constitution of 1949, 669 (2013) https://heinonline.org/HOL/Page?collection=cow&handle=hein.cow/zzhu0045&id=12&men_tab=srchresults

English translation of the Hungarian original text of the Constitution of 2011, 8 (2012) https://heinonline.org/HOL/Page?collection=cow&handle=hein.cow/zzhu0016&id=9&men_tab=srchresults
}}

Freedom of Religion/History/Country sources/Honduras

2024-08-02T20:45:56Z

Kj47:

{{Right section
|right=Freedom of Expression
|section=History
|question=Country sources
|questionHeading=What is the oldest written source in this country that mentions this right?
|breakout=Honduras
|pageLevel=Breakout
|contents=Honduras first protected freedom of expression in Article 99 of the 1848 Constitution. Notably, it granted this right to both citizens and inhabitants. The 1865 Constitution continued to protect this right, but added the stipulation that “writing injurious to particular persons cannot be published unless subscribed by the author, and with the publication of his name.” Article 85 of the constitution written in 1965 ferments the freedom of expression.

References
English translation of the Spanish original text of the Constitution of 1848, 1103 (2010) https://heinonline.org/HOL/Page?collection=cow&handle=hein.cow/zzhn0003&id=18&men_tab=srchresults

English translation of the Spanish original text of the Constitution of 1865, 303 (2010) https://heinonline.org/HOL/Page?collection=cow&handle=hein.cow/zzhn0004&id=17&men_tab=srchresults

Amos J.; Xydis Peaslee, Dorothy Peaslee. Constitutions of Nations, 3 https://heinonline.org/HOL/Page?collection=cow&handle=hein.cow/conatio0004&id=861&men_tab=srchresults
}}

Freedom of Religion/History/Country sources/Haiti

2024-08-02T20:44:36Z

Kj47:

{{Right section
|right=Freedom of Expression
|section=History
|question=Country sources
|questionHeading=What is the oldest written source in this country that mentions this right?
|breakout=Haiti
|pageLevel=Breakout
|contents=Haiti’s establishment of independence from France following the Haitian Revolution manifested in the 1806 Constitution. Revised in 1816, the Constitution stated, “No one can be hindered from telling, writing or publishing his opinions.” This tradition continued through the 19th and 20th century, with the 1987 Constitution of the Republic of Haiti stating that all Haitains have the right to express opinions, and censorship is only allowed in times of war. Following the regime changes in the 2020s, there are circulating Draft Constitutions of the Independent Advisory Committee.

References
English Translation of the French Text of the Constitution of 1806, as Amended to 1816, 64 (2014) https://heinonline.org/HOL/Page?collection=cow&handle=hein.cow/zzht0060&id=3&men_tab=srchresults

English original text of the Constitution of 1987, 8 (2017) https://heinonline.org/HOL/Page?collection=cow&handle=hein.cow/zzht0028&id=9&men_tab=srchresults
}}

Freedom of Religion/History/Country sources/Guyana

2024-08-02T20:43:39Z

Kj47:

{{Right section
|right=Freedom of Expression
|section=History
|question=Country sources
|questionHeading=What is the oldest written source in this country that mentions this right?
|breakout=Guyana
|pageLevel=Breakout
|contents=Following its declaration of independence from the British Empire, the government of Guyana published the 1966 Constitution, which permits freedom of expression in Article 3. This right was further protected in Article 40 of the 1980 Constitution of the Co-operative Republic of Guyana, which is still held today.

References
English text of the Constitution of 1966, 630 (2011) https://heinonline.org/HOL/Page?collection=cow&handle=hein.cow/zzgy0002&id=2&men_tab=srchresults

English text of the Constitution of 1980, 26 (2011) https://heinonline.org/HOL/Page?handle=hein.cow/zzgy0004&id=26&collection=cow&index=
}}

Freedom of Religion/History/Country sources/Guinea-Bissau

2024-08-02T20:42:53Z

Kj47:

{{Right section
|right=Freedom of Expression
|section=History
|question=Country sources
|questionHeading=What is the oldest written source in this country that mentions this right?
|breakout=Guinea-Bissau
|pageLevel=Breakout
|contents=Guinea-Bissau’s second Constitution, created in 1973, groups freedom of opinion, assembly, association, demonstration, and religion together in Article 17. The 1984 version, amended in 1993, individually grants freedom of expression in Article 51.

References
Constitution of the Republic of Guinea-Bissua, 3 (1973)

English Translation of the Portuguese Original Text of the Constitution of 1984 as Amended by Constitutional Law No. 1/95 of 1 December 1995 and Constitutional Law No. 1/96 of 16 December 1996, 13 (2023) https://heinonline.org/HOL/Page?collection=cow&handle=hein.cow/zzgw0008&id=13&men_tab=srchresults
}}

Freedom of Religion/History/Country sources/Guinea

2024-08-02T20:42:06Z

Kj47:

{{Right section
|right=Freedom of Expression
|section=History
|question=Country sources
|questionHeading=What is the oldest written source in this country that mentions this right?
|breakout=Guinea
|pageLevel=Breakout
|contents=The 1958 Constitution of the First Republic of Ghana does not explicitly protect freedom of expression, but lays the groundwork for freedom of speech in Article 40. The seventh Article in the constitution of the Third Republic, crafted in 1990, dictates that everyone is “free to express, to manifest and to diffuse” ideas. The most recent 2020 Constitution guarantees freedom of expression and of opinion in Article 10.

References
Amos J.; Xydis Peaslee, Dorothy Peaslee. Constitutions of Nations, 3 https://heinonline.org/HOL/Page?collection=cow&handle=hein.cow/conatio0001&id=251&men_tab=srchresults

English Translation of the French Original Text of the Fundamental Law of 1990, 4 (2021) https://heinonline.org/HOL/Page?handle=hein.cow/zzgn0016&id=4&collection=cow&index=

English Translation Based on a Transcription of Decree D/2020/073/PRG/SGG of 6 April 2020, as Published in the Journal Officiel de la Republique de Guinee of 14 April 2020, Provided by the Web Portal for the Law of Guinea [GuiLaw], 6 (2021) https://heinonline.org/HOL/Page?collection=cow&handle=hein.cow/zzgn0019&id=6&men_tab=srchresults
}}

Freedom of Religion/History/Country sources/Guinea

2024-08-02T20:40:54Z

Kj47:

{{Right section
|right=Freedom of Religion
|section=History
|question=Country sources
|questionHeading=What is the oldest written source in this country that mentions this right?
|breakout=Guinea
|pageLevel=Breakout
|contents=The 1958 Constitution of the First Republic of Ghana does not explicitly protect freedom of expression, but lays the groundwork for freedom of speech in Article 40. The seventh Article in the constitution of the Third Republic, crafted in 1990, dictates that everyone is “free to express, to manifest and to diffuse” ideas. The most recent 2020 Constitution guarantees freedom of expression and of opinion in Article 10.

References
Amos J.; Xydis Peaslee, Dorothy Peaslee. Constitutions of Nations, 3 https://heinonline.org/HOL/Page?collection=cow&handle=hein.cow/conatio0001&id=251&men_tab=srchresults

English Translation of the French Original Text of the Fundamental Law of 1990, 4 (2021) https://heinonline.org/HOL/Page?handle=hein.cow/zzgn0016&id=4&collection=cow&index=

English Translation Based on a Transcription of Decree D/2020/073/PRG/SGG of 6 April 2020, as Published in the Journal Officiel de la Republique de Guinee of 14 April 2020, Provided by the Web Portal for the Law of Guinea [GuiLaw], 6 (2021) https://heinonline.org/HOL/Page?collection=cow&handle=hein.cow/zzgn0019&id=6&men_tab=srchresults
}}

Freedom of Religion/History/Country sources/Guatemala

2024-08-02T20:40:18Z

Kj47:

{{Right section
|right=Freedom of Expression
|section=History
|question=Country sources
|questionHeading=What is the oldest written source in this country that mentions this right?
|breakout=Guatemala
|pageLevel=Breakout
|contents=The 1823 Constitutional Bases mentioned freedom of thought, which was officially installed as a right in the 1825 First Constitution the State of Guatemala in Article 25. The pattern of short, turbulent regimes during the 20th century manifested in numerous constitutions, all of which guaranteed freedom of expression and opinion. Most recently, the Political Constitution of the Republic of Guatemala from 1985/86 grants freedom of expression “through any means of dissemination, without censorship or prior permission.”

References
English translation of the Spanish original text of the fundamental law of 1823, 114 (2017) https://heinonline.org/HOL/Page?collection=cow&handle=hein.cow/zzgt0103&id=4&men_tab=srchresults

English translation of the Spanish orignal text of the Constitution of 1825, 117 (2017) https://heinonline.org/HOL/Page?handle=hein.cow/zzgt0100&id=2&collection=cow&index=

English Translation of the Spanish Original Text of the Constitution of 1985/86, 10 (1986) https://heinonline.org/HOL/Page?collection=cow&handle=hein.cow/zzgt0106&id=10&men_tab=srchresults
}}

Freedom of Religion/History/Country sources/Grenada

2024-08-02T20:39:36Z

Kj47:

{{Right section
|right=Freedom of Expression
|section=History
|question=Country sources
|questionHeading=What is the oldest written source in this country that mentions this right?
|breakout=Grenada
|pageLevel=Breakout
|contents=Grenada’s 1973 Constitution declares the freedom of expression in its first Article. It groups freedom of expression with freedom of conscience, assembly, and association. This version of the Constitution was reinstated in 1991 and revised in 1992.

References
English original text of the Constitution of 1973 as scheduled to the Order 6 (1973) https://heinonline.org/HOL/Page?handle=hein.cow/zzgd0001&id=6&collection=cow&index=
}}

Freedom of Religion/History/Country sources/Greece

2024-08-02T20:38:13Z

Kj47:

{{Right section
|right=Freedom of Expression
|section=History
|question=Country sources
|questionHeading=What is the oldest written source in this country that mentions this right?
|breakout=Greece
|pageLevel=Breakout
|contents=The 10th Article of the 1844 Greek Constitution cedes the right to free verbal and written expression. Notably, it restricts access to the position of newspaper editor to only Greek citizens. This designation is not changed until the 1975 Constitution of Greece designates free expression in Article 14, except in the cases of attempts to overthrow the government, criticize the President, or make offensive remarks against Christianity or another religion.
References
English translation of the Greek original text of the Constitution of 1844, 6 (1844) https://heinonline.org/HOL/Page?collection=cow&handle=hein.cow/zzgr0044&id=6&men_tab=srchresults

English translation of the Greek original text of the Constitution of 1975, 14 (2011) https://heinonline.org/HOL/Page?collection=cow&handle=hein.cow/zzgr0016&id=12&men_tab=srchresults
}}

Freedom of Religion/History/Country sources/Ghana

2024-08-02T20:37:27Z

Kj47:

{{Right section
|right=Freedom of Expression
|section=History
|question=Country sources
|questionHeading=What is the oldest written source in this country that mentions this right?
|breakout=Ghana
|pageLevel=Breakout
|contents=Article 22 of the 1969 Constitution grants freedom of expression. It also requires press mediums to provide equal opportunities for opposing views. The 1979 Constitution confirms this right and prohibits censorship. Ghana’s current Constitution from 1992 groups freedom of expression, press, and speech together.
References
English original text of the Constitution of 1969, 22 (2010) https://heinonline.org/HOL/Page?collection=cow&handle=hein.cow/zzgh0024&id=38&men_tab=srchresults

English original text of the Constitution of 1979 as scheduled to the Order 29 (2010)
Liberty https://heinonline.org/HOL/Page?handle=hein.cow/zzgh0003&id=42&collection=cow&index=

English original text of the Constitution of 1992 as scheduled to the Promulgation Law, 23 (2009) https://heinonline.org/HOL/Page?collection=cow&handle=hein.cow/zzgh0001&id=53&men_tab=srchresults
}}

Freedom of Religion/History/Country sources/Georgia

2024-08-02T20:36:17Z

Kj47:

{{Right section
|right=Freedom of Expression
|section=History
|question=Country sources
|questionHeading=What is the oldest written source in this country that mentions this right?
|breakout=Georgia
|pageLevel=Breakout
|contents=Article 19 of the 1995 Georgia Constitution grants freedom of expression to all individuals. It also stipulates that no one may be forced to express certain beliefs. Article 16 broadens this conceptualization of expression by postulating that “everyone has the right to free personal development.”

References
English Translation of the Georgian Original Text of the Constitution of 1995, 3 (1995) https://heinonline.org/HOL/Page?collection=cow&handle=hein.cow/zzge0021&id=3&men_tab=srchresults
}}

Freedom of Religion/History/Country sources/Gabon

2024-08-02T20:34:44Z

Kj47:

{{Right section
|right=Freedom of Religion
|section=History
|question=Country sources
|questionHeading=What is the oldest written source in this country that mentions this right?
|breakout=Gabon
|pageLevel=Breakout
|contents=Following independence from France, Gabon’s 1959 Constitution did not explicitly grant freedom of expression. The 2nd Republic’s 1961 Constitution drew ideas from the 1789 Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen and from the 1948 Universal Declaration Of the Rights of Man. It added, “Everyone has the right to the free development of his personality, within the limits of respect for the rights of others and for the public order.” Moreover, the 3rd Republic’s 1991 Constitution expanded upon this conception of the freedom of expression to include “the freedom of conscience, of thought, of opinion, of expression, of communication, the free practice of religion,” based on the 1981 African Charter of the Rights of Man and of Peoples and the 1990 National Charter of Freedoms.

References
English Translation of the French Official Original Text of the Constitution of 1959, 3 (2022) https://heinonline.org/HOL/Page?handle=hein.cow/zzga0042&id=3&collection=cow&index=

English translation of the French original text of the Constitution of 1961, 194 (2017) https://heinonline.org/HOL/Page?handle=hein.cow/zzga0032&collection=cow

English Translation of the French Original Text of the Constitution of 1991, 3 (2022) https://heinonline.org/HOL/Page?collection=cow&handle=hein.cow/zzga0054&id=3&men_tab=srchresults
}}

Freedom of Religion/History/Country sources/France

2024-08-02T20:33:58Z

Kj47:

{{Right section
|right=Freedom of Religion
|section=History
|question=Country sources
|questionHeading=What is the oldest written source in this country that mentions this right?
|breakout=France
|pageLevel=Breakout
|contents=France laid the groundwork for inalienable rights to freedom of expression through the Declaration of the Rights of Man, and of the Citizen. Article 11 of this 1789 document states, “The free communication of ideas and of opinion is one of the most precious rights of man.” The 1791 French Constitution utilized this phrasing in its 11th Article to enshrine freedom of expression, and continues this tradition of citing the Rights of Man in the 1958 Constitution.

References
English translation of the French original text of the Declaration of 1789, 2 (2010)
Declaration of the Rights of Man and Citizen, 1789 https://heinonline.org/HOL/Page?collection=cow&handle=hein.cow/zzfr0143&id=2&men_tab=srchresults

English translation of the French original text of the Constitution of 1791, 60 (2010) https://heinonline.org/HOL/Page?collection=cow&handle=hein.cow/zzfr0138&id=3&men_tab=srchresults

English original text of the Constitution of 1958, together with the Preamble of 1946, 77 (2010) https://heinonline.org/HOL/Page?handle=hein.cow/zzfr0147&id=3&collection=cow&index=
}}

Freedom of Religion/History/Country sources/Finland

2024-08-02T20:32:16Z

Kj47:

{{Right section
|right=Freedom of Religion
|section=History
|question=Country sources
|questionHeading=What is the oldest written source in this country that mentions this right?
|breakout=Finland
|pageLevel=Breakout
|contents=According to Article 10 of the 1919 Form of Government, Finland protects the freedom of speech and the freedom to publish without restraint, although it does not explicitly state the freedom of expression. The 1999/2000 Constitution grants freedom of expression to all Finnish citizens, including “the right to express, disseminate, and receive information, opinions, and other communications without prior prevention by anyone.” There are limits to this freedom, such as to protect children or classified cases.

References
English translation of the French official translation of the original text of the Constitution of 17 July 1919. 469 (2010) https://heinonline.org/HOL/Page?handle=hein.cow/zzfi0005&id=2&collection=cow&index=

English translation Finnish original official text of the Constitution of 1999/2000. 3 (2017) https://heinonline.org/HOL/Page?collection=cow&handle=hein.cow/zzfi0015&id=3&men_tab=srchresults
}}

Voting Rights and Suffrage/US implicit

2024-08-01T15:20:12Z

Kj47: Created page with "{{Right section |right=Voting Rights and Suffrage |section=Legal Codification |question=US implicit |questionHeading=Has it been interpreted as being implicit in the US Constitution? |pageLevel=Question |contents=While certain amendments explicitly address voting rights, the broader interpretation of voting rights as being implicit in the United States Constitution has evolved significantly through judicial decisions and legislative actions. The Supreme Court and other j..."

{{Right section
|right=Voting Rights and Suffrage
|section=Legal Codification
|question=US implicit
|questionHeading=Has it been interpreted as being implicit in the US Constitution?
|pageLevel=Question
|contents=While certain amendments explicitly address voting rights, the broader interpretation of voting rights as being implicit in the United States Constitution has evolved significantly through judicial decisions and legislative actions. The Supreme Court and other judicial bodies have played a critical role in interpreting these rights and ensuring their protection.

The Voting Rights Act of 1965 was a pivotal piece of legislation in the fight to protect voting rights. It aimed to overcome legal barriers at the state and local levels that prevented Black Americans from exercising their right to vote as guaranteed under the 15th Amendment. However, the 2013 Supreme Court Case Shelby County v. Holder successfully challenged the constitutionality of parts of the VRA. The case disputed the constitutionality of Section Four (the Coverage Formula) and Section Five (Preclearance of Changes in Election Laws) of the VRA, which outlined a mandate for states with a history of racial discrimination in voting to “pre-clear” changes in the election process with the Justice Department (Congressional Research Service 2015, 16). The attorneys believed these mandates impeded states’ rights to determining voter eligibility. Ultimately, they won based on an argument that the coverage formula was outdated (Congressional Research Service 2015, 1).

The constitutions that do make explicit references to voting rights are state constitutions. Whereas the US Constitution utilizes negative mandates to govern who the government may not disenfranchise, state constitutions directly list who is eligible to vote (Douglas 2014, 89). Article I, Section 2 of the United States Constitution grants states the power to determine voting eligibility (Douglas 2014, 90). Former Supreme Court Justice Scalia asserted that the Elections Clause “empowers Congress to regulate how federal elections are held, but not who may vote in them” (Douglas 2014, 91). What provides this implication of voting rights is that “the U.S. Constitution mentions individual voting rights seven times – in Article I, Section 2 and in the Fourteenth, Fifteenth, Seventeenth, Nineteenth, Twenty-Fourth, and Twenty-Sixth Amendments – but none of those provisions actually grant a right to vote to U.S. citizens” (Douglas 2014, 95).

The interpretation of voting rights as implicit in the Constitution has been significantly shaped by judicial decisions and expanded understanding of constitutional amendments. Legislative actions, such as the Voting Rights Act, have further reinforced these rights, although challenges and debates continue regarding their scope and protection. These elements underscore the Constitution’s role in both explicitly and implicitly protecting the right to vote as a pillar of democracy.

References
Congressional Research Service. “The Voting Rights Act of 1965: Background and Overview.” (2015). https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R43626/15#:~:text=The%20Voting%20Rights%20Act%20was,preclearance%20of%20new%20laws%20in.

Douglas, J. “The Right to Vote Under State Constitutions.” Vanderbilt Law Review 89: 89-149 (2014). https://scholarship.law.vanderbilt.edu/vlr/vol67/iss1/1.

Persily, N and Mann, T. “Shelby County v. Holder and the Future of the Voting Rights Act.” Brookings (2013). https://www.brookings.edu/articles/shelby-county-v-holder-and-the-future-of-the-voting-rights-act/.
U.S. Constitution. https://www.senate.gov/about/origins-foundations/senate-and-constitution/constitution.htm.
}}

Voting Rights and Suffrage/US

2024-08-01T15:16:08Z

Kj47: Created page with "{{Right section |right=Voting Rights and Suffrage |section=Legal Codification |question=US |questionHeading=Is it contained in the US Constitution? |pageLevel=Question |contents=Voting rights, while not directly detailed in the original United States Constitution, have been addressed through several amendments. Originally, the status of voting was defined as the manner of choosing members of Congress – voting directly for the House of Representatives and indirectly for..."

{{Right section
|right=Voting Rights and Suffrage
|section=Legal Codification
|question=US
|questionHeading=Is it contained in the US Constitution?
|pageLevel=Question
|contents=Voting rights, while not directly detailed in the original United States Constitution, have been addressed through several amendments. Originally, the status of voting was defined as the manner of choosing members of Congress – voting directly for the House of Representatives and indirectly for Senators who were appointed by the legislature. Article I, Section II of the Constitution details: “The House of Representatives shall be composed of members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States” and Article I, Section III dictates: “The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, chosen by the Legislature thereof.” Overall, it was states that held the authority to create voting eligibility rules to the House of Representatives and to state legislatures that would choose Senators. Further amendments reflect the evolving understanding and expansion of democratic participation in the United States.

The 15th Amendment, ratified in 1870, states: “The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude” (U.S. Const. amend. XV). This amendment was a direct response to the end of the Civil War and the abolition of slavery, aiming to enfranchise Black men. It serves as the first explicit constitutional guarantee of voting rights, targeting racial discrimination.

In 1920, states ratified the 19th Amendment, which significantly expanded the electorate by protecting voting rights for women. The amendment states, “The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex” (U.S. Const. amend. XVIIII).

The next consequential change in the Constitution to address voting rights is the 24th Amendment of 1964. It dictates, “The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax” (U.S. Const. amend. XXIV). This means that economic barriers such as poll taxes are not allowed in federal elections, ensuring that financial constraints would not impede the right to vote.

Finally, the 26th Amendment of 1971 decides, “The right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of age” (U.S. Const. amend XXVI). The primary motivation in lowering the voting age from 21 to 18 years old was the argument that if individuals are old enough to be drafted for military service, they should also have the right to vote.

These amendments exemplify the American public’s evolving stance on voting rights and eligibility, moving from a general framework to explicit protections against specific forms of disenfranchisement.

References
U.S. Constitution. https://www.senate.gov/about/origins-foundations/senate-and-constitution/constitution.htm.
}}

Privacy Rights/Fundamentally accepted

2024-08-01T14:04:39Z

Kj47: Created page with "{{Right section |right=Privacy Rights |section=History |question=Fundamentally accepted |questionHeading=When was it generally accepted as a fundamental, legally-protectable right? |pageLevel=Question |contents=The recognition of privacy rights as fundamental and legally-protectable can be traced back to seminal writings, key legal cases, and the growing awareness of the impact of technological advancements on personal privacy. The conceptualization of privacy has been w..."

{{Right section
|right=Privacy Rights
|section=History
|question=Fundamentally accepted
|questionHeading=When was it generally accepted as a fundamental, legally-protectable right?
|pageLevel=Question
|contents=The recognition of privacy rights as fundamental and legally-protectable can be traced back to seminal writings, key legal cases, and the growing awareness of the impact of technological advancements on personal privacy. The conceptualization of privacy has been widely debated and has undergone significant evolution over the past century. While deeply rooted in historical principles of ancient and common law, the concept of privacy has been continually redefined to address the challenges posed by technology and changing social landscapes. It has often been associated with personal freedom and dignity.

Earlier protections afforded to the inviolability of the home and correspondence made the privacy of property acceptable. These rights, enshrined in many constitutions during the 1800s, laid the groundwork for the modern concept of privacy. For example, the seminal 1789 “Declaration of the Rights of Man” stated, “Since property is an inviolable and sacred right, no one shall be deprived thereof except where public necessity, legally determined, shall clearly demand it, and then only on condition that the owner shall have been previously and equitably indemnified” (Declaration of the Rights of Man 1789). The inviolability of the home protected individuals from unwarranted intrusions by the state, recognizing a private sphere free from governmental interference. Similarly, the protection of correspondence remained confidential, safeguarding the privacy of individual expression.

Samuel Warren and Louis Brandeis’s 1890 article “The Right to Privacy” served as a catalyst in the movement to legally recognize privacy rights. They argued for the necessity of recognizing privacy as a distinct legal right, separate from existing protections of person and property under existing law. Additionally, the conceptualization of privacy was needed to respond to the modern era: “This development of the law was inevitable. The intense intellectual and emotional life, and the heightening of sensations which came with the advance of civilization, made it clear to men that only a part of the pain, pleasure, and profit of life lay in physical things. Thoughts, emotions, and sensations demanded legal recognition” (Brandeis & Warren 1890, 193). Furthermore, they highlighted the inadequacies of existing legal frameworks to address the non-physical aspects of privacy, emphasizing the need for the evolution of the law in response to changing social and technological landscapes. In particular, the right “to be let alone” is a fundamental aspect of privacy to Warren and Brandeis in the modernizing world (Warren & Brandeis 1890, 194).

Despite Warren and Brandeis’s popular arguments, early 20th-century legal developments were slow to incorporate a broad conception of privacy rights. A notable example is the 1928 Supreme Court case Olmstead v. United States, where the Court held that wiretapping a person’s home telephone did not violate the Fourth Amendment because it did not involve a physical trespass (Solove 2008, 1101). However, legal decisions began to shift in the mid-20th century, starting with the 1965 Griswold v. Connecticut case. The Court ruled that a right to privacy could be inferred from several amendments in the Bill of Rights, thereby preventing states from making the use of contraception by married couples illegal (Griswold v. Connecticut 1985). This established privacy as a constitutionally protected right and laid the groundwork for subsequent decisions that expanded privacy protections.

Correspondingly, further landmark cases and bills recognized privacy rights. Katz v. United States in 1967 overruled the Olmstead decision; the Privacy Act of 1974, created in response to the Watergate scandal, aimed to regulation the collection and use of personal information by federal agencies; the Right to Financial Privacy Act of 1978 was passed by Congress in response to a court case that held that individuals had not property interest in their bank records (Solove 2008, 1146; Regan 1995, 366).

Internationally, many institutions influenced the development of privacy rights. Early on, Europe enacted several pieces of legislation to protect privacy. Article 8 of the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights explicitly recognized the right to respect for private and family life, home, and correspondence (Bygrave 2014, 12). This right has been one of the most frequently contested in case law and has influenced the development of privacy laws in Europe and across the globe. In fact, the United Nations Human Rights Committee stated, “No one shall be subjected to arbitrary or unlawful interference with his privacy, family, home, or correspondence, nor to unlawful attacks upon his honour and reputation” in Article 17 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (Bygrave 2014, 57).

In the 21st-century, significant advancements in digital technology make the protection of privacy rights challenging. The explosion of digitized information and the rise of new media forms raise complex questions regarding the adequacy of existing privacy laws. William Prosser’s influential work on privacy tort law, while providing a foundational framework, has been criticized for its limitations in addressing contemporary privacy issues (Richards & Solove 2010, 1187). In response, David Lyon and William Staples have discussed the implications of surveillance for privacy in modern society, highlighting the need for pinging vigilance and adaptation of privacy protections in response to evolving technological and social landscapes (Lyon 2001, 222).

Overall, the recognition of privacy rights as fundamental and legally-protectable has been a dynamic and evolving process. From the early arguments of Warren and Brandeis to the landmark Supreme Court cases and legislative action, the concept of privacy has continually adapted to new challenges and contexts. These actions were all in response to the changing nature of privacy threats and to ensure legal protections could continue to evolve to these new challenges.

References
Bygrave, L. A. (2014). "Data Privacy Law: An International Perspective." Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199675555.001.0001.
Declaration of the Rights of Man (1789). https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/rightsof.asp.
Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965). https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/381/479/.
Penfold, R. (2002). [Review of Surveillance Society: Monitoring Everyday Life; Everyday Surveillance: Vigilance and Visibility in Post Modern Life, by D. Lyon & W. Staples]. The British Journal of Criminology, 42(1), 222–224. http://www.jstor.org/stable/23638774
Regan, P. M. (1995). "Legislating Privacy: Technology, Social Values, and Public Policy." University of North Carolina Press.
Richards, N. M., & Solove, D. J. (2010). "Prosser’s Privacy Law: A Mixed Legacy." California Law Review, 98(6), 1887-1924. https://scholarship.law.gwu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2104&context=faculty_publications.
Solove, D. J. (2008). "Understanding Privacy." Harvard University Press. https://doi.org/10.2307/3481326.
Warren, S.D., & Brandeis, L.D. (1890). “The Right to Privacy.” Harvard Law Review, 4(5), 193-220. https://groups.csail.mit.edu/mac/classes/6.805/articles/privacy/Privacy_brand_warr2.html.
}}

Freedom of Religion/History/Country sources/Behaviorism

2024-07-31T20:11:29Z

Kj47:

{{Right section
|right=Freedom of Association
|section=Philosophical Origins
|question=Tradition contributions
|questionHeading=What have religious and philosophical traditions contributed to our understanding of this right?
|breakout=Behaviorism
|pageLevel=Breakout
|contents=Freedom of association underpins collective action, social movements, and personal development. However, it is not universally protected and is often only implied in many countries. The field of psychology can assist in uncovering the roots of why people associate and if it is a productive freedom in societies. Behaviorism contributes to society’s understanding of freedom of association through its emphasis on the roles of reinforcement, punishment, and environmental influences in shaping human decision-making.

Behaviorism emerged within the field of psychology in the early 20th century. Its key distinguisher is that it emphasizes the study of observable behavior over internal mental states (Malone 1975, 141). The “father of behaviorism,” John B. Watson, launched the “Behavioral Revolution” following his 1913 article and lecture “Psychology as the Behaviorist Views It” (Moore 2017, 12). This new phenomenon continued to spread through key figures and their theories: B.F. Skinner and his operant conditioning, William James and his ideo-motor action theory, and George Herbert Mead and his analysis of reflective intelligence (Baldwin 1988; Malone 1975).

Freedom of association can be understood through a behaviorist lens through its attention to why people join groups. This psychological field argues that all behaviors are acquired through conditioning, and therefore the reactions people receive based on their group status influence their trajectory in such groups. If individuals receive positive reinforcement for joining a group – such as social approval, increased resources, a sense of belonging – then they are more likely to continue participating in that group (Skinner 2002, 44). However, if an individual receives negative reinforcement for their association with a group – such as social ostracism, punishment, legal penalties – then they will be more likely to disassociate with that group (Skinner 2002). A positive experience with group association will reinforce someone’s behavior of seeking out and maintaining associations, but the threat of negative consequences acts as a deterrent to behavior that would tend toward group participation. Watson and other behaviorists believed that understanding the science of behavior would benefit human welfare, as these concepts would be grounded in science and naturalistic principles, rather than mental and social assumptions (Moore 2017, 1).

A key tenet of behaviorism is the notion that the environment one is surrounded by greatly influences behavior (Baldwin 1988). Mead emulates this idea in his reflective intelligence theory. If one has several response options available, the person will use significant symbols and established norms to choose an action (Baldwin 1988, 117). Correspondingly, Skinner argued that his operant behavior theory “is directed toward the future: a person acts in order that something will happen, and the order is temporal” (Baldwin 1988, 121).

At the individual level, people are influenced by social norms and peers. They are inclined to join groups that are socially acceptable and supported by their peers, thus receiving positive reinforcement from their ability to conform to group norms and activities (Skinner 2002). Moreover, people utilize reference groups in order to determine their attitudes toward ideas (Stafford 1966, 69). They influence both aspiration levels and kinds of behaviors, establishing approved perspectives and actions.

Politically, the way a government protects or does not protect the freedom of association affects how individuals will behave. If this right is protected legally, group formation is positively reinforced; if this right is infringed upon such as in authoritarian regimes, people fear group association and act according to the negative reinforcer (Baum 2016; Skinner 2002). Likewise, individualistic communities place more value on personal autonomy than collectivist communities that emphasize group participation.

Thus, Skinner argues that societies should be constructed – through scientific study – around ways to emphasize positive reinforcement and abandon negative reinforcers, as these only hinder collective action. He views political liberty as the absence of aversive conditions – like detrimental control and negative reinforcers (Machan 1975, 3). People should be free to associate because behavior modification through the implementation of correct reinforcers will build a more harmonious society. Author Carson Bennett states, “By adopting the radical behavioral viewpoint of B.F. Skinner, we would truly become the masters of our fate and captains of our environment” (Bennet 1990, 18).

References

Baldwin, John D. “MEAD AND SKINNER: AGENCY AND DETERMINISM.” Behaviorism 16, no. 2 (1988): 109–27. http://www.jstor.org/stable/41236063.

Baum, William M. “Freedom” in Understanding Behaviorism: Behavior, Culture, and Evolution. 2016. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119143673.ch9.

Bennet, Carson M. “A Skinnerian View of Human Freedom.” The Humanist 50, no. 4 (1990): 18. https://www.proquest.com/openview/6e7dbdc248e3d859911b8ae9221f818a/1.pdf?pq-origsite=gscholar&cbl=35529.

Machan, Tibor. “Skinner vs. Freedom, Dignity, and Liberty.” Reason (1975). https://reason.com/1975/01/01/skinner-vs-freedom-dignity-and/.

Malone, John C. “William James and B. F. Skinner: Behaviorism, Reinforcement, and Interest.” Behaviorism 3, no. 2 (1975): 140–51. http://www.jstor.org/stable/27758839.

Moore, J. “John B. Watson’s Classical S–R Behaviorism.” The Journal of Mind and Behavior 38, no. 1 (2017): 1–34. http://www.jstor.org/stable/44631526.

Skinner, B.F. Beyond Freedom & Dignity. Hackett Publishing. 2002.

Skinner, B.F. “The Operational Analysis of Psychological Terms.” The Behavioral and Brain Sciences 7 (1984): 547-581. https://userpages.umbc.edu/~catania/ABACNJ/Pages%20from%20BBS%20BFS%204%20terms.pdf.

Stafford, James E. “Effects of Group Influences on Consumer Brand Preferences.” Journal of Marketing Research 3, no. 1 (1966): 68–75. https://doi.org/10.2307/3149437.
}}

Freedom of Religion/History/Country sources/Behaviorism

2024-07-31T15:31:07Z

Kj47: Created page with "{{Right section |right=Freedom of Association |section=Philosophical Origins |question=Tradition contributions |questionHeading=What have religious and philosophical traditions contributed to our understanding of this right? |breakout=Behaviorism |pageLevel=Breakout |contents=Freedom of association underpins collective action, social movements, and personal development. However, it is not universally protected and is often only implied in many countries. The field of psy..."

{{Right section
|right=Freedom of Association
|section=Philosophical Origins
|question=Tradition contributions
|questionHeading=What have religious and philosophical traditions contributed to our understanding of this right?
|breakout=Behaviorism
|pageLevel=Breakout
|contents=Freedom of association underpins collective action, social movements, and personal development. However, it is not universally protected and is often only implied in many countries. The field of psychology can assist in uncovering the roots of why people associate and if it is a productive freedom in societies. Behaviorism contributes to society’s understanding of freedom of association through its emphasis on the roles of reinforcement, punishment, and environmental influences in shaping human decision-making.

Behaviorism emerged within the field of psychology in the early 20th century. Its key distinguisher is that it emphasizes the study of observable behavior over internal mental states (Malone 1975, 141). The “father of behaviorism,” John B. Watson, launched the “Behavioral Revolution” following his 1913 article and lecture “Psychology as the Behaviorist Views It” (Moore 2017, 12). This new phenomenon continued to spread through key figures and their theories: B.F. Skinner and his operant conditioning, William James and his ideo-motor action theory, and George Herbert Mead and his analysis of reflective intelligence (Baldwin 1988; Malone 1975).

Freedom of association can be understood through a behaviorist lens through its attention to why people join groups. This psychological field argues that all behaviors are acquired through conditioning, and therefore the reactions people receive based on their group status influence their trajectory in such groups. If individuals receive positive reinforcement for joining a group – such as social approval, increased resources, a sense of belonging – then they are more likely to continue participating in that group (Skinner 2002, 44). However, if an individual receives negative reinforcement for their association with a group – such as social ostracism, punishment, legal penalties – then they will be more likely to disassociate with that group (Skinner 2002). A positive experience with group association will reinforce someone’s behavior of seeking out and maintaining associations, but the threat of negative consequences acts as a deterrent to behavior that would tend toward group participation. Watson and other behaviorists believed that understanding the science of behavior would benefit human welfare, as these concepts would be grounded in science and naturalistic principles, rather than mental and social assumptions (Moore 2017, 1).

A key tenet of behaviorism is the notion that the environment one is surrounded by greatly influences behavior (Baldwin 1988). Mead emulates this idea in his reflective intelligence theory. If one has several response options available, the person will use significant symbols and established norms to choose an action (Baldwin 1988, 117). Correspondingly, Skinner argued that his operant behavior theory “is directed toward the future: a person acts in order that something will happen, and the order is temporal” (Baldwin 1988, 121).

At the individual level, people are influenced by social norms and peers. They are inclined to join groups that are socially acceptable and supported by their peers, thus receiving positive reinforcement from their ability to conform to group norms and activities (Skinner 2002). Moreover, people utilize reference groups in order to determine their attitudes toward ideas (Stafford 1966, 69). They influence both aspiration levels and kinds of behaviors, establishing approved perspectives and actions.

Politically, the way a government protects or does not protect the freedom of association affects how individuals will behave. If this right is protected legally, group formation is positively reinforced; if this right is infringed upon such as in authoritarian regimes, people fear group association and act according to the negative reinforcer (Baum 2016; Skinner 2002). Likewise, individualistic communities place more value on personal autonomy than collectivist communities that emphasize group participation.

Thus, Skinner argues that societies should be constructed – through scientific study – around ways to emphasize positive reinforcement and abandon negative reinforcers, as these only hinder collective action. He views political liberty as the absence of aversive conditions – like detrimental control and negative reinforcers (Machan 1975, 3). People should be free to associate because behavior modification through the implementation of correct reinforcers will build a more harmonious society. Author Carson Bennett states, “By adopting the radical behavioral viewpoint of B.F. Skinner, we would truly become the masters of our fate and captains of our environment” (Bennet 1990, 18).
}}
References

Baldwin, John D. “MEAD AND SKINNER: AGENCY AND DETERMINISM.” Behaviorism 16, no. 2 (1988): 109–27. http://www.jstor.org/stable/41236063.

Baum, William M. “Freedom” in Understanding Behaviorism: Behavior, Culture, and Evolution. 2016. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119143673.ch9.

Bennet, Carson M. “A Skinnerian View of Human Freedom.” The Humanist 50, no. 4 (1990): 18. https://www.proquest.com/openview/6e7dbdc248e3d859911b8ae9221f818a/1.pdf?pq-origsite=gscholar&cbl=35529.

Machan, Tibor. “Skinner vs. Freedom, Dignity, and Liberty.” Reason (1975). https://reason.com/1975/01/01/skinner-vs-freedom-dignity-and/.

Malone, John C. “William James and B. F. Skinner: Behaviorism, Reinforcement, and Interest.” Behaviorism 3, no. 2 (1975): 140–51. http://www.jstor.org/stable/27758839.

Moore, J. “John B. Watson’s Classical S–R Behaviorism.” The Journal of Mind and Behavior 38, no. 1 (2017): 1–34. http://www.jstor.org/stable/44631526.

Skinner, B.F. Beyond Freedom & Dignity. Hackett Publishing. 2002.

Skinner, B.F. “The Operational Analysis of Psychological Terms.” The Behavioral and Brain Sciences 7 (1984): 547-581. https://userpages.umbc.edu/~catania/ABACNJ/Pages%20from%20BBS%20BFS%204%20terms.pdf.

Stafford, James E. “Effects of Group Influences on Consumer Brand Preferences.” Journal of Marketing Research 3, no. 1 (1966): 68–75. https://doi.org/10.2307/3149437.