Legal Codification

Legal Codification

Right	Breakout	Contents
Freedom of Association		Yes. It is protected explicitly in documents such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the European Convention on Human Rights, and the American Convention on Human Rights. Specifically, free association is upheld by Article 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which claims, “Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and to freedom of association with others, including the right to form and to join trade unions for the protection of his interests.”Additionally, it is enshrined in Article 20 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which claims “ Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association; No one may be compelled to belong to an association.” In Article 22 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the rights to association are specifically outlined, as it upholds “In this respect, the law shall prohibit any discrimination and guarantee to all persons equal and effective protection against discrimination on any ground such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status.” Lastly, The International Labor Organization similarly supports freedom of association in the 1998 Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work, which asserts that all members have “freedom of association and the effective recognition of the right to collective bargaining;”
Freedom of Association		Constitutions written after 1900 very often protect free association. As the right to free association is upheld by numerous United Nations treaties, for example, the European Convention on Human Rights, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, it would be expected that most countries maintain legal provisions protecting it. Though, investigated by UN Special Rapporteur Maina Kiai, many countries enforce legislation that explicitly restricts civilians’ entitlements to free association (International Center for Not-for-Profit Law). For example, noted by Kiai, in Malaysia, the Peaceful Assembly Act 2012 bans individuals under the age of twenty one from organizing public demonstrations. Additionally, stipulated by the same act, children under the age of fifteen cannot participate in demonstrations. Article 33 of the Constitution of Mexico, Kiai asserts, prohibits foreigners from engaging with Mexican politics. Similarly, Kiai notes that in Myanmar, Article 354 prohibits foreigners from assembling. Through these various forms of legislation, political and social association are highly restricted, as individuals are prohibited from expressing their associations through protest and civic engagement. Additionally, Kiai presents how legal restrictions on sexual orientation limit free association in several countries. For example, in Russia, a ban on gay pride parades was upheld by Moscow’s city council in 2012. Likewise, in Nigeria, the President ushered in the Same Sex Marriage Act in 2014, prohibting gay marriage and the ability to “participate in or support gay clubs, societies, organizations, processions or meeting.” Kiai notes a similar anti-homosexuality law was signed by Uganda’s president in 2014. Demonstrated by these numerous legal restrictions to homosexuality, free association is unprotected in numerous countries, as one can often be punished for associating with a specific sexual orientation. In the remainder of his report, Kiai continues to elaborate on numerous legal provisions that restrict free association. For example, Kiai notes how both Chile and Turkey utilize counter-terrorism legislation to restrict free association. Similarly, he explains how criminal laws in Vietnam and El Salvador often deter individuals from exercising their rights to free association, as their voices may be met with harsh penalties from their governments. Witnessed through Kiai’s reporting, the restrictions to free association are plentiful. This ultimately demonstrates that despite its entitlement by numerous United Nations treaties, the right to free association is highly vulnerable to violation and not widely internationally upheld.
Freedom of Association		No. The right to free association is not explicitly stated in the United States Constitution. Though, The Supreme Court has historically upheld the constitutional right to free association, invoking the Fourteenth and First Amendments (Legal Information Institute, Cornell Law School). In 1958, The NAACP v. Patterson ruling established this precedent. In response to Alabama’s aims to limit the NAACP’s business within the state, the Supreme Court ruled that it was “the right of petitioner's members to pursue their lawful private interests privately and to associate freely with others in doing so as to come within the protection of the Fourteenth Amendment” (Oyez). Furthermore, the court asserted that freedom of association was undoubtedly covered by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment (Oyez), which asserts no individual may be “"deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law.” The court additionally demonstrated the First Amendment to protect free association, Justice Harlan claiming “Effective advocacy of both public and private points of view, particularly controversial ones, is undeniably enhanced by group association, as this Court has more than once recognized by remarking upon the close nexus between the freedoms of speech and assembly.” Thus, while the right to free association is not explicitly described by the Constitution, as witnessed in NAACP v. Patterson, it is upheld by American constitutional law. References: Cornell Law School, Legal Information Institute, “First Amendment”: https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/first_amendment
Freedom of Association		Yes. As seen in Roberts v. US Jaycees, the right may be weighed against other state interests, especially when the association in question is neither expressive nor intimate. In that case, free association rights were curtailed to ensure adherence to non-discrimination laws. Additionally, a significant exception to free association rights in the United States is witnessed through legislation regarding political parties. For example, in New York State Board of Elections vs. Lopez Torres, the court claimed, A political party has a First Amendment right to limit its membership as it wishes, and to choose a candidate-selection process that will in its view produce the nominee who best represents its political platform. These rights are circumscribed, however, when the state gives a party a role in the election process...Then for example, the party’s racially discriminatory action may become state action that violates the Fifteenth Amendment Demonstrated by New York State Board of Elections vs. Lopez Torres, if a party associates with discriminatory or racist behavior, it cannot be involved in the state’s election process, demonstrating a limitation on free political association. Additionally, sections of the Federal Election Campaign Act are often interpreted to be exceptions to free association, as they require the public disclosure of individuals’ political donations. This position was echoed by the Buckley v. Valeo ruling, where the Supreme Court argued that new campaign finance laws, “impose significantly more severe restrictions on protected freedom of political expression and association than do its limitations on financial contributions.” Thus, witnessed by Buckley v. Valeo, campaign finance laws may be interpreted as an exception to free association, as one cannot privately financially contribute to the political party they associate with. Within universities, freedom of association, specifically the right to associate as an exclusive religious group, may be regulated by anti-discrimination clauses. This was observed in Christian Legal Society v. Martinez, where the court ruled in favor of Hastings’ College of Law’s anti-discrimintation policies, which prohibited Christian student group’s from excluding non-christians. Therefore, on university campuses, individuals must be able join any student group, regardless of their religious association. Ultimately, this decision restricted the parameters of free association, as one cannot actively discriminate on the basis of it. Consequently, decided by Hurley v. Irish-American Gay, Lesbian, and Bisexual Group of Boston, certain groups can legally exclude individuals from associating with them. Furthermore, if an individual’s beliefs do not coincide with the group’s mission, the individual may be prohibited from membership. Specifically, the court claimed that by mandating the Boston Veterans’ Council to include Gay, Lesbian, and Bisexual individuals in their parade, the Massachusetts State Court, “violates the fundamental First Amendment rule that a speaker has the autonomy to choose the content of his own message and, conversely, to decide what not to say.” Thus, while still restricting free association, the ruling counters Christian Legal Society v. Martinez, as individuals can be restricted from associating with certain groups if it is deemed that their identity does not conform to the group’s platform. Ultimately, these exceptions arise from the implicit nature of the freedom of association within the Constitution, as what qualifies as “association” is highly subject to interpretation by Supreme Court justices. For this reason, depending on who is sitting on the bench, freedom of association can be left unchecked or potentially be highly restricted. References: Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1 (1976) Christian Legal Society v. Martinez, 561 U.S. 661 (2010), Irish-American Gay, Lesbian and Bisexual Group of Boston, 515 U.S. 557 (1995), New York State Board of Elections v. Lopez Torres, 552 U.S. 196 (2008) Roberts v. United States Jaycees, 468 U.S. 609 (1984)
Freedom of Association		Since the 1950s and 60s, SCOTUS has, to an extent, ruled that the speech and assembly rights imply a right to associate, especially for politically expressive purposes. For example, it ruled in NAACP v. Alabama that the NAACP cannot be forced to submit a membership roster to a state government. In 2000, in Boy Scouts v. Dale, the court held that the Boy Scouts could exclude gay members (in violation of state non-dsicrimination laws) because not being able to do so would undermine their ability to express a viewpoint - expressive association. In Roberts v. US Jaycees, an organization for young business leaders’ ban on female members was challenged because it violated state non-discrimination law. This case is notable because the court identified a new form of association: intimate association. The opinion of the court states that “certain intimate human relationships be secured against undue intrusion by the State because of the role of such relationships in safeguarding the individual freedom that is central to our constitutional scheme.” The opinion places this right under the general aims of the First Amendment. The court ruled against the organization, but in so doing, it established the idea that Americans have the right to free intimate and expressive association. Still, one could argue that in a state with true freedom to associate, any group of people would be able to enact whatever membership restrictions it wanted, regardless of whether or not it falls into the categories of “expressive” or “intimate.” Although assembly is the First-Amendment freedom that most seems to correspond with association, SCOTUS has not derived free association this way. Rather, it uses a more nebulous combination of various First-Amendment rights. As the majority held in NAACP v. Button, “It is not necessary to subsume such activity under a narrow, literal conception of freedom of speech, petition or assembly, for there is no longer any doubt that the First and Fourteenth Amendments protect certain forms of orderly group activity.” References: Boy Scouts of America v. Dale, 530 U. S. 640 NAACP v. Alabama, 357 U. S. 449 NAACP v. Button, 371 U.S. 415 (1963) Roberts v. United States Jaycees, 468 U.S. 609 (1984)
Freedom of Expression		Multiple human rights regimes at both international and regional levels enshrine the universal freedom of expression in their frameworks, in accordance with the other fundamental values that these documents uphold. Although in international documents this freedom relates mostly to the unabridged ability of individuals to express their thoughts and opinions, it also protects media and press institutions that disseminate news and information throughout societies. For European countries, the right to free expression is entitled by Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, though it is not an absolute law. According to the article, freedom of expression can be restricted if it incites crime or jeopardizes natural security, public health, personal reputations or the authority of the judiciary. Additionally, In Africa, both the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights and the Declaration of Principles on Freedom of Expression assure members of the African Union the right to free expression. In Mexico and South America, the American Convention on Human Rights, also referred to as the Pact of San Jose, upholds the right to free expression. Internationally, the United Nations lists numerous treaties that uphold the right to free expression. Most predominantly, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights (ICESCR), and the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (ICERD) enshrine the right to free expression. Through these various treaties, freedom of expression is upheld by international law. In the context of international human rights regimes, freedom of expression is guaranteed by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). In both documents, freedom of expression is found under Article 19. In the UDHR, the right is listed as such: “Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.” (UN, 2014) Article 19 of the ICCPR is worded very similarly but includes greater specificity, as it explicitly lays out protected ways to consume and impart information, including “...orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of [one’s] choice.” (OHCHR, 2014) Regional human rights regimes also enshrine freedom of expression in a similar manner. The Organization of American States’ (OAS) Declaration of Principles on Freedom of Expression is composed of 13 articles that lay out protections of the freedom of expression and nuances of those protections in various contexts, including accessing information, censorship, communication freedoms, and privacy aspects. The American Declaration on the Rights and Duties of Man includes the freedom of expression in Article 4, with similar wording to Article 19 of the UDHR and the ICCPR. The African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights protects the right to “receive information,” and the right to “express and disseminate [one’s] opinions within the law.” (AU, 1986) This right is also established in the American Convention on Human Rights in Article 13 and is expanded by Article 14. Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights consists of two sections, the first echoing the wording of the UDHR and ICCPR, as well. References: American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man. Basic Documents - American Declaration. (n.d.). https://www.cidh.oas.org/basicos/english/basic2.american%20declaration.htm. European Convention on Human Rights. https://www.echr.coe.int/. (n.d.). https://www.echr.coe.int/documents/convention_eng.pdf. International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. OHCHR. (n.d.). https://www.ohchr.org/en/professionalinterest/pages/ccpr.aspx. PLC, A. M. B. F. T. (n.d.). African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights. African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights Legal instruments. https://www.achpr.org/legalinstruments/detail?id=49. Organization of American States. Declaration of Principles on Freedom of Expression. http://www.oas.org/en/iachr/expression/showarticle.asp?artID=26. 2021. United Nations. (n.d.). Universal Declaration of Human Rights. United Nations. https://www.un.org/en/about-us/universal-declaration-of-human-rights.
Freedom of Expression		The right to free expression, expressed in terms of freedom of speech, is “formally granted by the laws of most nations” (World Population Review), though the degree of liberty that comes with entitlements to free expression may differ. Furthermore, a Free Expression Index generated by Pew Research Center in 2015 demonstrates one method for comparing the strength of free expression internationally (Pew Research Center). In developing the index, Pew surveyed 38 countries on eight questions pertaining to free expression. Pew proceeded to then rank the countries on a scale of zero to eight-eight meaning the country fully supported free expression. From their results, the United States and Canada demonstrated the highest levels of free expression, with scores of 5.73 and 5.08 respectively, while Senegal and Burkina Faso showed the lowest levels of free expression, with scores of 2.06 and 2.94, respectively. Thus, demonstrated by the Pew Research index, while many countries may support free expression within their constitutions, the degree to which free expression is practiced and enforced often varies. References: Pew Research Center: “Global Support for Principle of Free Expression, but Opposition to Some Forms of Speech,” November 8, 2015: https://www.pewresearch.org/global/2015/11/18/global-support-for-principle-of-free-expression-but-opposition-to-some-forms-of-speech/ (Accessed November 9, 2022 World Population Review: https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/countries-with-freedom-of-speech (Accessed November 9, 2022)
Freedom of Expression		The right to free expression is not stated explicitly in the United States constitution, though it is universally accepted as covered by the First Amendment: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” The rights to free speech, press, assembly, and petition are generally viewed are elements of the right to free expression in the USA.
Freedom of Expression		Several Supreme Court cases have placed restrictions on the right to free expression, creating exceptions to the First Amendment. For example, in Schenk v. United States, the Supreme Court ruled that free expression is not constitutionally protected when it will “to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils which Congress has a right to prevent.” The qualifications for limiting dangerous speech were later established by Brandenburg v. Ohio: “Freedoms of speech and press do not permit a State to forbid advocacy of the use of force or of law violation except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action.” Additionally, there is a legal exception for “fighting words”. This was decided by the Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire decision, where the court upheld that it was illegal for Walter Chaplinsky to call a police officer “a damned Fascist.” Another exception to the First Amendment is obscene language. In Miller v. California, the court clarified what qualifies as obscene language, which was described as speech that “To the average person, applying contemporary community standards, appeal to the prurient interest; Depict or describe, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct, as specifically defined by the applicable state law, and taken as a whole, lack any serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.” Therefore, expression that falls under these standards may be regulated. Defamation, “a statement that injures a third party’s reputation” (Legal Information Institute, Cornell Law School), is an additional exception to freedom of expression in the United States. The standards for defamation were established in New York Times Company v. Sullivan, which claimed that in order to sue a news outlet for defamation, one must have proof that the outlet was aware of their false claims prior to publishing. Lastly, commercial speech may be regulated in order to protect consumers. In Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corporation v. Public Service Commission of New York, the Court described a four-part test for determining whether or not the government could limit commercial speech: “At the outset, we must determine whether the expression is protected by the First Amendment. For commercial speech to come within that provision, it at least must concern lawful activity and not be misleading. Next, we ask whether the asserted governmental interest is substantial. If both inquiries yield positive answers, we must determine whether the regulation directly advances the governmental interest asserted, and whether it is not more extensive than is necessary to serve that interest.” Ultimately, demonstrated by these numerous cases, although the United States Constitution upholds freedom of expression, there are various exceptions to the First Amendment. References: Schenck v. United States, 249 U.S. 48 (1919): https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/249/47/ Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969): https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/395/444/ Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, 315 U.S. 572; Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, 315 U.S. 568 (1942): https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/315/568/ Miller v. California, 413 U.S. 37 (1973): https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/413/15/ New York Times Company v. Sullivan, 376 US 254 (1964): https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/376/254/ Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corporation v. Public Service Commission of New York, 447 US 566 (1980): https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/447/557/ Legal Information Institute, Cornell Law School: https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/defamation#:~:text=Defamation%20is%20a%20statement%20that,for%20defamation%20and%20potential%20damages.
Freedom of Expression		Yes. The First Amendment is presumed to guarantee the right to free expression by guaranteeing the right to freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of peaceable assembly, and freedom of petition, though the phrase “freedom of expression” is not explicitly used in the Constitution.
Freedom of Religion		Yes, the freedom of religion is protected under several international human rights conventions, treaties, and decrees. This right is protected in article 18 of the UN’s 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights, article 18 of the 1966 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and also in the 1981 Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms of Intolerance and of Discrimination Based on Religion or Belief (United Nations Human Rights Office of the High Commissioner). The right is also protected by relevant articles within the following conventions and treaties: 1966 International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, the 1969 International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, the 1989 Convention on the Rights of the Child, the 1981 Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women, the 1984 Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, the 1990 UN International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families, the 1951 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide and the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees. However, despite the writings and workings of all these conventions, treaties, and declarations, freedom of religion is still commonly suppressed in many areas of the world (Janis 2002). There is no effective international supervision of rights to religious freedom and diversity. However, regional European human rights law does in fact have tangible supervision of and consequences regarding the suppression of the freedom of religion. Article 9 of the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms protects right to freedom of thought, conscience, and religion. REFERENCES “Global Restrictions on Religion.” Pew Research Center's Religion & Public Life Project, 30 May 2020, www.pewforum.org/2009/12/17/global-restrictions-on-religion/. Human Rights Library- University of Minnesota, hrlibrary.umn.edu/edumat/studyguides/religion.html. “International Religious Freedom Report for 2017.” Wilson Center, www.wilsoncenter.org/article/international-religious-freedom-report-for-2017. “International Standards - Framework for Communications.” OHCHR, www.ohchr.org/EN/Issues/FreedomReligion/Pages/Standards.aspx. Mark Weston Janis, “Religion and International Law.” ASIL, 17 Nov. 2002, www.asil.org/insights/volume/7/issue/13/religion-and-international-law. U.S. Department of State, U.S. Department of State, 2009-2017.state.gov/j/drl/rls/irf/religiousfreedom//index.htm. “You Can Be Put to Death for Atheism in 13 Countries around the World.” Humanists International, 1 Feb. 2019, humanists.international/2013/12/you-can-be-put-death-atheism-13-countries-around-world/.
Freedom of Religion		Most countries in the modern world protect freedom of religion in their constitutions; however, the extent to which the right is truly protected in practice ranges from state to state. The U.S. State Department names and publicly shames eight “Countries of Particular Concern” that systematically and consistently violate religious freedom rights within their borders: Burma, China, Eritrea, Iran, North Korea, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, and Uzbekistan (Pellot 2014). The Freedom of Thought Report by Humanists International found that you can be put to death for expressing atheism in an astonishing thirteen countries. Also, in thirty-nine countries the law mandates a prison sentence for blasphemy, including six surprising western countries: Iceland (up to three months), Denmark (up to four months), New Zealand (up to a year), Poland (up to two years), Germany (up to three years) and Greece (up to three years). Although the right may be protected in many states' constitutions, freedom of religion is severely lacking in many countries around the world. REFERENCES Pellot, Brian. “The Worst Countries for Religious Freedom.” Index on Censorship, 3 Jan. 2014, www.indexoncensorship.org/2014/01/worst-countries-religious-freedom/.
Freedom of Religion		Yes this right is protected in the First Amendment of the US Constitution. It permits that all people have the right to practice his/her own religion, or that they have the choice to practice no religion at all. There is no established religion in the US, and under the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, the government is prohibited from advancing or advocating any religion in any way. Also, under the Free Exercise Clause, the government cannot penalize a person for choosing or not choosing to worship in any particular way (ACLU). REFERENCES “Your Right to Religious Freedom.” American Civil Liberties Union, www.aclu.org/other/your-right-religious-freedom.
Freedom of Religion		Based upon the Constitution and the First Amendment, the federal government is, by law, not permitted to limit the exercising of one’s right to freedom of religion, but this specific clause did not apply at the state level (Lutz 2013). Eventually the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified, extending more religious freedoms as a guaranteed right to the states. However, in the actual application of the freedom of religion, the US relies upon Supreme Court decisions as a guide to the manner in which the right is exercised. In 1878, in the case of Reynolds v. United States, the Mormon Church legally challenged the 1862 Morrill Anti-Bigamy Act in efforts to continue their polygamist practices according to their beliefs and interpretations of their religion. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the US, citing that the law did not interfere with religious belief nor did it selectively target religious practice. In essence, “while the freedom to believe is absolute, the freedom to act on those beliefs is not” (Freedom Forum Institute 2020). Chief Justice Morrison Waite wrote, “To permit this would be to make the professed doctrines of religious belief superior to the law of the land, and, in effect, permit every citizen to become a law unto himself” (Lutz 2013). This decision was later reinforced in 1990, with the case of Employment Division v. Smith. After Alred Smith was fired from his job for using peyote, a controversial and, at that time, illegal hallucinogenic plant used in some religious rituals within the Native American Church, he sued the employment division under the law’s protection of “free exercise” (Cornell Legal Information Institute 2020). The Court ruled in favor of the Employment Division citing that the reason for the termination was work-related misconduct. Scalia stated that, allowing this kind of exemption from the law “would open the prospect of constitutionally required exemptions from civic obligations of almost every conceivable kind.” Eventually in 1994, however, this decision was reversed with the passing of the H.R. 4230 amendment to the American Indian Religious Freedom Act which protected the use of peyote in religious ceremonies. Also notably, the Sherbert v. Verner case of 1963 established the four-part “Sherbert test.” This test is also referred to as the “compelling interest” test. The test’s four parts are that: “For the individual, the court must 1. determine whether the person has a claim involving a sincere religious belief, and 2. whether the government action places a substantial burden on the person’s ability to act on that belief. Next, if these two elements are established, then the government must prove that 1. it is acting in furtherance of a “compelling state interest,” and that 2. it has pursued that interest in the manner least restrictive, or least burdensome, to religion” (Freedom Forum Institute 2020). However, the test was undermined in the ruling of the Employment Division v. Smith case because of the court’s implication that one could not legally and successfully challenge an infringement upon free exercise if the unintended result was to break laws that were generally applicable to all (and it permitted that the government did not have to justify this infringement by proving a compelling state interest). Also, these rulings were all made at the federal level; many states still control the ultimate application of “free exercise,” and as a result, the interpretation varies in differing states. Another notable case is the 1968 case of Newman v. Piggie Park Enterprises (Justia 2020). This case backed anti-discriminatory statutes after a barbecue chain refused to serve black people with the justification of the owner being that his beliefs compelled him to segregate races within his restaurants. This case was monumental because it well-established the limit to freedom of religion that allows for the weaponizing of one’s rights against another man. The courts also uses other tests in determining decisions regarding freedom of religion. The three-part Lemon test from the 1971 decision Lemon v. Kurtzman (which prohibited state funding of religious schools) states that 1. a court must first determine whether the law or government action in question has a compelling state and secular interest, underlining the idea that government should only concern itself in civil matters and should interfere with matters of individual religion as little as possible. 2. The state action must be proved to have the primary effect of advancing or inhibiting religion. And 3. the court must consider whether the action in question excessively entangles religion and government (Pacelle Jr.). Although criticized by several Supreme Court justices, some courts still use this test in establishment-clause cases. However, in the 1997 decision Agostini v. Felton, the Supreme Court finally modified the Lemon test in that it combined the entanglement and primary effects prongs of the test. The endorsement test, proposed by Justice Sandra Day O’Connor in her concurring opinion in the 1984 case of Lynch v. Donnelly, asks whether a particular government action amounts to an endorsement of religion (Hudson Jr.). This test has sometimes been assumed to fall into the Lemon test. It is similar to the first two prongs of the Lemon test by subjecting the challenged government act to the criteria of having the purpose or effect of endorsing religion. This test typically is invoked where the government is involved in expressive activities such as graduation prayers, religious signs on government property, religion in the curriculum, etc. Under the coercion test, the government does not violate the establishment clause unless it provides direct aid to religion in a way that would establish a state church or unless it coerces people to practice a religion against their will (Vile). However, this test is subject to varying interpretations, as is demonstrated in the conflicting cases of Allegheny County v. ACLU in 1989 and the 1992 case of Lee v. Weisman, in which Justices Kennedy and Antonin Scalia, applying the same test, reached different results (FindLaw 2020). Although freedom of religion is well-protected by the Constitution, debates over its application, protections from/of, and limitations to the right are an ongoing debate in the legal and free world. REFERENCES A Brief History of Peyote, www.peyote.org/. “Establishment Clause Overview.” Freedom Forum Institute, www.freedomforuminstitute.org/first-amendment-center/topics/freedom-of-religion/establishment-clause-overview/. “FindLaw's United States Supreme Court Case and Opinions.” Findlaw, caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/492/573.html. David L. Hudson, Jr.. Endorsement Test, mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/833/endorsement-test. Lutz, Zak. “Limits of Religious Freedom.” Harvard Political Review, 6 Nov. 2015, harvardpolitics.com/covers/limits-of-religious-freedom/. McGovern, Geoff. Lynch v. Donnelly, mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/737/lynch-v-donnelly. “Newman v. Piggie Park Enterprises, Inc., 390 U.S. 400 (1968).” Justia Law, supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/390/400/. Richard L. Pacelle, Jr.. Lemon Test, www.mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/834/lemon-test. “The No Religious Test Clause.” Article VI, The National Constitution Center, constitutioncenter.org/interactive-constitution/interpretation/article-vi/clauses/32. Vile, John R. Coercion Test, www.mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/899/coercion-test. “What Does ‘Free Exercise’ of Religion Mean under the First Amendment?” Freedom Forum Institute, www.freedomforuminstitute.org/about/faq/what-does-free-exercise-of-religion-mean-under-the-first-amendment/.
Freedom of Religion		The right is explicitly protected both in the Bill of Rights, but also in Article VI of the Constitution. This article prohibits religious discrimination in the formation of the government under the No Religious Test Clause. The clause, stating that “no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States,” promotes the freedom of religion and religious equality in all manners of life, starting from within the government itself (Brownstein and Campbell) REFERENCES Alan E. Brownstein and Jud Campbell, “The No Religious Test Clause,” https://constitutioncenter.org/the-constitution/articles/article-vi/clauses/32
Freedom of the Press		Multiple human rights regimes at both international and regional levels enshrine the universal freedom of expression in their frameworks, in accordance with the democratic values that these documents uphold. Although in international documents this freedom relates mostly to the unabridged ability of individuals to express their thoughts and opinions, it also protects media and press institutions that disseminate news and information throughout societies. In the context of international human rights regimes, freedom of expression is guaranteed by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). In both documents, freedom of expression is found under Article 19. In the UDHR, the right is listed as such: “Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.” (UN, 2014) Article 19 of the ICCPR is worded very similarly but includes greater specificity, as it explicitly lays out protected ways to consume and impart information, including “...orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of [one’s] choice.” (OHCHR, 2014) Regional human rights regimes also enshrine freedom of expression in a similar manner. The Organization of American States’ (OAS) Declaration of Principles on Freedom of Expression is composed of 13 articles that lay out protections of the freedom of expression and nuances of those protections in various contexts, including accessing information, censorship, communication freedoms, and privacy aspects. The American Declaration on the Rights and Duties of Man includes the freedom of expression in Article 4, with similar wording to Article 19 of the UDHR and the ICCPR. The African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights protects the right to “receive information,” and the right to “express and disseminate [one’s] opinions within the law.” (AU, 1986) This right is also established in the American Convention on Human Rights in Article 13 and is expanded by Article 14. Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights consists of two sections, the first echoing the wording of the UDHR and ICCPR, as well. Most of the above documents enshrine press freedoms alongside and within the general freedom of expression. However, two more recent regional frameworks, the Amsterdam Recommendations and the Bishkek Declaration, work to specifically define and protect press freedoms in the context of ever-evolving manifestations of the media. The Amsterdam Recommendations refer to press freedoms in light of the digitization of media and espouses that the freedom of expression be upheld regardless of the “...technical means... used to channel the work of journalists to the public…” (OSCE, Jun. 2003) This human rights regime reaffirms previous declarations made by the OSCE, UN, and OAS in 2001, which laid the foundation for ensuring universal, unlimited access to the Internet and digital frameworks. In light of the heightened possibilities afforded by digitization of media, the Amsterdam Recommendations are split into four focus areas: Access, Freedom of Expression, Education, and Professional Journalism. The Access portion refers to facets of the Internet and its interaction with the freedom of press and expression - this document establishes the Internet as a tool that allows for a “...free media landscape…” to flourish and is thus essential to the public as well as to journalists. (OSCE, Jun. 2003) The Freedom of Expression section acknowledges that the vast degree of usefulness of the Internet allows for increased freedom of expression and access to information, but it is equally susceptible to misuse via criminal exploitation and illicit activity. This section ultimately asserts that freedom to spread and receive information is a basic human right and should be protected from any form of censorship or limitation. Prosecuting and regulating criminal content should therefore only focus on the content itself and not the Internet, which is only a vessel. (OSCE, Jun. 2003) The Education portion refers to fostering computer and Internet literacy, and setting up training tools in schools and for adults so that the role of the Internet is well understood in civil society. (OSCE, Jun. 2003) Finally, the Professional Journalism portion protects private forms of communication as they present a different way of disseminating information than “classic media,” and also maintains that evolving forms of journalism should require the same degree of protection as “classic media.” This section also calls for the creation of a set of standards for journalists to follow, intended to lay out the responsibilities of “professional journalism.” (OSCE, Jun. 2003) The Bishkek Declaration is more related to protecting press freedoms from infringement by government bodies. Central to this human rights regime is the protection of the media’s right to preserve diversity of linguistic, cultural, and ethnic representation, and prohibits the dissemination of hate speech. The declaration also calls for the protection of the media’s role of holding government institutions and officials accountable to the public in both economic and political contexts. This provision is expanded by the fourth and fifth points, establishing the responsibilities of governments toward this goal - governments must ensure unlimited access to sources of public information for journalists of both state and non-state media apparatuses, and also must resolve any harassment of the press. The document also calls for the decriminalization of libel, allowing for the accountability role of the media to be adequately fulfilled. (OSCE, Sept. 2003) The aforementioned international and regional human rights regimes act in conjunction with the Amsterdam Recommendations and Bishkek Declaration to define modern press freedoms, and thereby contribute to the preservation of this fundamental democratic value.   References American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man. Basic Documents - American Declaration. (n.d.). https://www.cidh.oas.org/basicos/english/basic2.american%20declaration.htm. Dyer, Andrew. “Freedom of Expression and the Advocacy of Violence: Which Test Should the European Court of Human Rights Adopt?” Netherlands Quarterly of Human Rights, vol. 33, no. 1, Mar. 2015, pp. 78–107, doi:10.1177/016934411503300105. European Convention on Human Rights. https://www.echr.coe.int/. (n.d.). https://www.echr.coe.int/documents/convention_eng.pdf. International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. OHCHR. (n.d.). https://www.ohchr.org/en/professionalinterest/pages/ccpr.aspx. PLC, A. M. B. F. T. (n.d.). African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights. African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights Legal instruments. https://www.achpr.org/legalinstruments/detail?id=49. Organization of American States. Declaration of Principles on Freedom of Expression. http://www.oas.org/en/iachr/expression/showarticle.asp?artID=26. 2021. Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, The Representative on Freedom of the Media, Amsterdam Recommendations. Freedom of the Media and the Internet. OSCE, Jun. 14, 2003, www.osce.org/files/f/documents/4/a/41903.pdf Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, The Representative on Freedom of the Media, Fifth Central Asia Media Conference. Media in Multi-Cultural and Multi-Lingual Societies. OSCE, 2003, www.osce.org/files/f/documents/5/d/42521.pdf United Nations. (n.d.). Universal Declaration of Human Rights. United Nations. https://www.un.org/en/about-us/universal-declaration-of-human-rights.
Freedom of the Press		The right to freedom of the press is in the first amendment: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances” (United States of America 1789 (Rev. 1992) Constitution - Constitute, 1992) .
Freedom of the Press		Given the fuzzy line between freedom of speech and freedom of the press (Freedom of Expression, n.d.), restrictions or exceptions towards speech will impact the press and vice versa. With this is mind, there are two main exceptions in the history of United States law to the right of freedom of the press: the Espionage Act of 1917, and the Sedition Act of 1918. The Espionage Act of 1917 stated that an individual who shares a document or information that “…could be used to the injury of the United States…shall be fined…or imprisoned…” (18 U.S. Code § 793 - Gathering, Transmitting or Losing Defense Information, n.d.). Similar to the Alien and Sedition Acts, the Espionage Act was proposed in the context of war where President Woodrow Wilson himself pleaded for greater restriction to expression and punishment towards individuals that opposed the United States government in his State of the Union address: “Such creatures of passion, disloyalty, and anarchy must be crushed out” (Handout B, n.d.). The Espionage Act was put to the test in the case Schenck v. United States ( 1919) . Charles Schenck and Elizabeth Baer were convicted for violating the act by distributing leaflets that claimed the draft unconstitutional and was akin to “involuntary servitude” (Schenck v. United States, n.d.). The conviction was upheld by the Supreme Court due to Schenck and Baer’s actions providing a “clear and present danger” which the government has the constitutional ability to block (Asp, n.d.). A similar decision occurred with Debs v. United States ( 1919) . Eugene V. Debs, a popular socialist politician, was sentenced to ten years in prison for condemning the involvement of the United States in the first World War. Debs claimed protection under the First Amendment, but it was not accepted as Debs’ statements were considered, again, a clear and present danger due to them potentially causing resentment towards the draft (Dow, n.d.). Many were indicted through the Espionage Act, though as time passed, there was controversy over its small scope and high leniency as the first World War continued its drastic impact on the United States. The case that tipped the balance towards a stronger Espionage Act was an indictment to Ves Hall. Hall was a rancher in rural Montana who expressed plans to desert if he were drafted, that Germany would win the war, and that Woodrow Wilson was a corrupt president (Galison, 2010) . Hall’s prosecution had broad support from the press and the public. However, Hall was acquitted in the district court as the judge at the time decided that as Hall was in a remote village of 60 people and was miles and miles away from any military presence, and therefore his words did not present any threat to the United States: “…[Hall’s] verbal assault was so distant from its target that there simply was no plausible case to be made for interference with military operations or recruitment” (Ibid.). After Hall’s acquittal, in addition to other acquittals or lenient sentences, desire from American nationalists and supporters from the war increased for an expansion of the Espionage Act to be able to effectively punish and deter disloyalty (Ibid.; Gutfeld, 1968, pg. 169). An amendment was added to the Espionage Act, the Sedition Act of 1918, which rather than merely prohibiting the sharing of a document that could jeopardize American security, instead makes any “disloyal, profane, scurrilous, or abusive language” expressions towards the government, the Constitution, the military, or the flag a federal offense (The Espionage and Sedition Acts, 2021) . Eventually, the early 20th century war-era acts were reversed by the 1964 case Brandenburg v. Ohio. In the case, Clarence Brandenburg, a member of the Ku Klux Klan, was having a meeting where he planned a demonstration on Washington, D.C. Brandenburg was convicted to ten years in prison for advocating crime and terrorism (Walker, n.d.). When the case went to the Supreme Court, the Court unanimously decided to overturn Brandenburg’s conviction (Ibid.). The Court stated: “Freedoms of speech and press do not permit a State to forbid advocacy of the use of force or of law violation except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action” (Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444, 1969) . As a result, this gave political dissenters a greater ability to express their beliefs despite whatever position towards the United States Government they may have. Even with Brandenburg’s “imminent lawless action” rule did not completely dissolve the Espionage Act, however. As the Cold War became a more prominent conflict in the 20th century, the Espionage Act was used to justify convictions of American citizens who shared sensitive information about the United States’ research into atomic bombs (DeWitt, 2016, pg. 124). Henceforth, citizens who had access to sensitive information would have their speech limited, in order to protect national security, and it is this interpretation of the Espionage Act which the United States government uses to justify convictions towards “whistleblowers”—Edward Snowden and Chelsea Manning for example—in the present day (DeWitt, 2016, pg. 127; Greenwald, 2013; Volokh, 2018) . Other exceptions to freedom of the press exist. One example is that of obscenity. In 1973, the case Miller v. California, publisher Marvin Miller was prosecuted for mailing advertisements considered obscene (Hudson, n.d.). The Supreme Court acquitted Miller of the charge and established a three-part test—the Miller test— to decide whether an expression is obscene or not: “Whether the average person…would find the work…appeals to the prurient interest,…whether the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by the applicable state law,…and whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value” (Marvin MILLER, Appellant, v. State of CALIFORNIA., 1973) . Defamation is another exception, of which the 1964 case New York Times v. Sullivan is an example. The New York Times published an advertisement containing false information about actions taken by opposers of civil rights which included Alabama police, which the Montgomery, Alabama city commissioner, L.B. Sullivan, then responded by filing suit, claiming that the advertisement harmed his reputation and was libelous (Wermiel, n.d.). The Supreme Court reversed the motions of the previous courts that defended Sullivan and Justice William J. Brennan Jr. Opined for the majority: “[We] consider this case against the background of a profound national commitment to the principle that debate on public issues should be uninhibited, robust and wide open…” allowing even for “…vehement, caustic and sometimes unpleasantly sharp attacks on government and public officials” (Hudson Jr, n.d.). With this defense, however, limits could be enforced if the expression is made with “ ‘actual malice’—that is, with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not” (New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254, 1964) . Lastly, there is a limit as to what extent the press can protect their reporters’ confidentiality, and this was established in the 1972 case Branzburg v. Hayes (Tom McInnis, n.d.). Reporter Paul Branzburg published a story about drug use and the Black Panthers. Branzburg was asked to testify on the illegal activity and Branzburg refused due to the confidentiality he promised his sources. The Supreme Court decided that, as the information was relevant to a criminal investigation, reporters are obligated to testify on that information (Ibid.). The Court states: “The First Amendment does not relieve a newspaper reporter of the obligation that all citizens have to respond to a grand jury subpoena and answer questions relevant to a criminal investigation, and therefore the Amendment does not afford him a constitutional testimonial privilege…” (Branzburg v. Hayes, 1972) .
Freedom of the Press		The right is explicitly stated in the Constitution, though challenges and questions towards it have arisen throughout the United States’ legal history. One of the first such challenges were the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798, which came about out of an increasing aversion towards disloyalty brought about by fears of France’s potential invasion of the United States (Batten, 2010). Signed by John Adams, the acts allowed for the deportation of immigrants originating from a country that the United States was currently at war with, and, crucially, gave the government the ability to punish those who “…shall write, print, utter or publish…any false, scandalous and malicious writing or writings against the government of the United States…” (Congress, 1845). According to Douglas Bradburn, “The clamor against the Alien and Sedition Acts was broad, important, and deeply consequential”, with Thomas Jefferson leading the backlash (Bradburn, 2008, pg. 567). The political and public reaction to curtailments of the first amendment, including the right to freedom of the press were strongly antagonistic from the beginning. The 1964 Supreme Court decision in New York Times v. Sullivan further shows the commitment towards this right. The New York Times published an advertisement containing false information about actions taken by opposers of civil rights which included Alabama police, which the Montgomery, Alabama city commissioner, L.B. Sullivan, then responded by filing suit, claiming that the advertisement harmed his reputation and was libelous (Wermiel, n.d.). Later in 1971 the Supreme Court decided on New York Times Co. V. United States, again in favor of the publication. Sensitive documents about the United States’ involvement in the Vietnam War, named the “Pentagon Papers”, were shared with the publication and the New York Times published it to which the government responded by filing suit, under the justification of prior restraint, a rule that allows the government the ability to review the publication of material and prevent its publication under their discretion (Robertson, n.d.). The Court decided that regardless of the sensitive nature of the documents, the right to free expression and freedom of the press trumped the harm that could be had from the publication of the documents (Ibid.). Bradburn, D. (2008). A Clamor in the Public Mind: Opposition to the Alien and Sedition Acts. The William and Mary Quarterly, 65(3), 565–600. Congress, U. S. (1845). Public Acts of the Fifth Congress, Second Session, Chapter 74. In New York Times v. Sullivan (1964). (n.d.). LII / Legal Information Institute. Retrieved July 7, 2021, from https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/new_york_times_v_sullivan_(1964) Robertson, S. (n.d.). New York Times Co. V. United States. Retrieved July 9, 2021, from https://www.mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/505/new-york-times-co-v-united-states Wermiel, S. (n.d.-b). New York Times Co. V. Sullivan. Retrieved July 9, 2021, from https://www.mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/186/new-york-times-co-v-sullivan
Privacy Rights		Although there are various regional and international human rights treaties protecting the right to privacy, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), as well as the European Convention for the protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (ECHR) are often regarded as the most fundamental and widely respected. Article 17 of the ICCPR states that “no one shall be subjected to arbitrary or unlawful interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence” and Article 19 continues: (1) Everyone shall have the right to hold opinions without interference. (2) Everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of his choice. (3) The exercise of the rights provided for in paragraph 2 of this article carries with it special duties and responsibilities. It may therefore be subject to certain restrictions, but these shall only be such as are provided by law and are necessary: (a) For respect of the rights or reputations of others, and (b) For the protection of national security or of public order, or of public health or morals. In his paper “The Privacy Principle,” Frederic Gilles Sourgens claims that ““these two provisions make up the backbone of the human right to privacy” (351), where protection applies to any intrusion of personal information, including thoughts opinions, religious beliefs, health, relationships, and sexual encounters (Sourgens, “Privacy Principle,” 351). The ICCPR supports that the state must inform persons of reason of intrusion in non public spaces, as well as the nature of the information collected, but may intrude “to the extent proportionate with specific threats” (Sourgens, “Privacy Principle,”353). The ICCPR “explicitly distinguishes between the obligations to respect and to ensure human rights, while the ECHR speaks…only of the obligation to secure in the actual text” (Milanovic “Privacy in the Digital Age,” 102). Additionally, Article 2(1) of the ICCPR claims that states are responsible for “all individuals within its territory and subject to its jurisdiction” (Milanovic “Privacy in the Digital Age,” 101). Although there are frameworks within the treaties that support the protection of privacy, there are many limitations to the legislation itself. The primary flaw is that the interpretation of ‘jurisdiction’ and ‘territory’ are contested by states (Milanovic “Privacy in the Digital Age,”101). The common conception is that human rights instruments are purely territorial, however, intelligence programs often operate outside the territory of signatory states (Sourgens, “Privacy Principle,” 353). The International Court of Justice (ICJ) has ruled that “States parties to the Covenant should be bound to comply with its provisions”, (Sourgens, “Privacy Principle,”353) with regional treaties such as the ECHR and American Convention on Human Rights (ACHR) respecting this claim (354). However, many states reject this extraterritorial application of privacy protection, arguing that treaty rights only apply within the sovereign territory of signatory states (Sourgens, “Privacy Principle,” 356). Historically, the US and other states had not expressed a clear view on the territorial scope of ICCPR (Milanovic “Privacy in the Digital Age,” 103), with the US eventually stating that there is a default presumption against extraterritorial application of the treaties in 1995 (Milanovic “Privacy in the Digital Age,”105). Additionally, countries such as China are not a party to the ICCPR or other treaties with privacy protections, and do not have domestic laws to restrict government surveillance powers (Sourgens, “Privacy Principle,” 358). Russia has also attempted to counteract rulings of the European Court using domestic legislation, and France similarly minimized its basic privacy protections after the 2015 mass shootings in Paris (Sourgens, “Privacy Principle,” 358). The COVID-19 pandemic has also placed national surveillance at the forefront, as governments and research institutions use location data to keep track of cases (Zwitter and Gstrein, “Big Data,” 2). Location data is collected through phone network, wifi connections, and satellite based radio navigation (GPS) (Zwitter and Gstrein, “Big Data,” 2). Article 15 of the ECHR was updated in December 2019 to allow states to derogate in situations of: (1) war or other public emergency threatening the life of the nation, (2) taking measures which are strictly required by the exigencies of the situation, and (3) provided that measures are not inconsistent with other obligations under international law (Zwitter and Gstrein, “Big Data,” 3). Data protection and privacy are included in those rights that are subject to derogation during times of crises (Zwitter and Gstrein, “Big Data,”3). Data ownership, such as location tracking, is a matter of contract law and is often included in the terms of use, leaving the legality of the practice to individual consent (Zwitter and Gstrein, “Big Data,” 3). The conclusion that Zwitter and Gstrein come to is that there is a “lack of dedicated legal frameworks to address the use of data in times of political crisis” (Zwitter and Gstrein, “Big Data,”4), therefore allowing for the infringement of privacy rights despite the existence of international and regional treaties. REFERENCES: Sourgens, Frederic Gilles. “The Privacy Principle.” Yale Journal of International Law, 42(2), 345-408, 2017. Milanovic, Marko. “Human rights treaties and foreign surveillance: privacy in the digital age.” Harvard International Law Journal, 56(1), 81-146, 2015. Zwitter, Andrej and Gstrein, Oskar J. “Big data, privacy and COVID-19 – learning from humanitarian expertise in data protection.” Int J Humanitarian Action 5, (4), 2020.
Privacy Rights		The right to privacy is not explicitly contained in the United States Constitution. REFERENCES: Privacy. (n.d.). Cornell Law School Legal Information Institute. Retrieved Sept. 8, 2021, from https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/privacy
Privacy Rights		Most recent US legislation regarding the right to privacy concerns the collection, retention, and transfer of personal data. Under the Department of Justice, the Office of Privacy and Civil Liberties (OPCL) enforces privacy laws, recommends privacy policies (including exceptions), and responds to data breaches (Office of Privacy and Civil Liberties, n.d.). Freedom of Information Act 1966 (as amended 2016) In 1966, Congress passed the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). This act granted anyone the ability to request access to federal agency records but not the records of private companies. However, nine exemptions and three exclusions may prevent access to these records (Freedom of Information Act, n.d.). The exclusions are narrow and related to law enforcement and ongoing intelligence investigations and are unaffected by FOIA (Freedom of Information Act, n.d.). The exemptions authorize government agencies to withhold information from those requesting it (Freedom of Information Act, n.d.). The nine exemptions prevent the sharing of information if it is classified for national security, part of internal rules or practices, prohibited through other laws (such as the Privacy Act, see below), a trade secret, legally protected, a medical file, law enforcement records, regarding bank supervision, or locational information (Freedom of Information Act, n.d.). FOIA was most recently updated with the FOIA Improvement Act of 2016, which increased transparency and altered procedures (OIP Summary of the FOIA Improvement Act of 2016, 2016). Privacy Act 1974 The Privacy Act of 1974 was an effort to balance the “governments’ need to maintain information” and the “rights of individuals to be protected against unwarranted invasions of their privacy” (Walls, n.d.; Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. § 552a, n.d.). It prevents agencies from disclosing records to any person or agency unless it falls into one of the twelve approved guidelines (Walls, n.d.; Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. § 552a, n.d.). The most used reasons which allow for disclosure are subsections 1, 2, and 3 of 5 US Code § 552a(b) (Overview of the Privacy Act: 2020 Edition, 2021). Subsection One allows for the disclosure of information between agencies on a need-to-know basis. Subsection Two allows the FOIA to overrule the Privacy Act with regards to when to disclose information. Subsection Three allows for disclosure to another party if their use is similar to the use for which the data was originally collected. This third exception is quite broad, which causes controversy (Overview of the Privacy Act: 2020 Edition, 2021). Other exceptions include use for public record (used for the Census or National Archive data), or requests by law enforcement or the court system. In addition to putting forth information disclosure guidelines, this act requires agencies to keep accurate records of how, where, and why they sent information if they had sent information (Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. § 552a, n.d.). Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act 1999 The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (GLBA) was passed to regulate the transfer of consumers’ “nonpublic personal information” by financial institutions (FDIC, 2021). At its core, the law says financial institutions cannot pass along personal data to third parties unless the customer is put on notice, given the opportunity to opt out, and they do not opt out (FDIC, 2021). Exceptions to this rule appear in Sections 13-15 (FDIC, 2021, VIII-1.3). Section 13 permits the transfer of some personal data to a third party if they are performing services on behalf of the financial institution, but they must be contractually bound to not do anything else with the data (FDIC, 2021, VIII-1.3). Section 14 allows the bank to disclose information as needed to perform banking functions initiated by the customer, while Section 15 extends that disclosure to normal financial institution acts, such as fraud detection (FDIC, 2021, VIII-1.3). Of these exceptions, only Section 13 requires the customer to be notified that their information is being shared (FDIC, 2021). USA PATRIOT Act 2001 & USA Freedom Act 2015 Enacted less than two months after the 9/11 attacks, the PATRIOT Act was passed with the intention of increasing homeland security by allowing surveillance techniques used in local crime to be used to fight terrorism (Highlights of the USA PATRIOT Act, n.d.; USA PATRIOT Act, n.d.). Most importantly, this law allowed for the sharing of information between law enforcement agencies at various levels without notice (Highlights of the USA PATRIOT Act, n.d.). This law wasn’t the most protective of civil rights and liberties and to rectify that President Obama signed the USA Freedom Act in 2015, ending government collection of metadata (Patriot Act, n.d.; Fact sheet, 2015). REFERENCES: Fact sheet: Implementation of the USA Freedom Act of 2015. (2015, Nov. 27). Central Intelligence Agency. https://www.intelligence.gov/index.php/ic-on-the-record-database/results/787-fact-sheet-implementation-of-the-usa-freedom-act-of-2015 Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC). (2021, April). FDIC Consumer Compliance Examination Manual: VIII-1.1 Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act. Author. https://www.fdic.gov/resources/supervision-and-examinations/consumer-compliance-examination-manual/index.html Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. § 552. (1966). Freedom of Information Act, The. (n.d.). Department of State. Retrieved Sept. 14, 2021, from https://foia.state.gov/learn/foia.aspx Highlights of the USA PATRIOT Act. (n.d.) Department of Justice. Retrieved Sept. 14, 2021, from https://www.justice.gov/archive/ll/highlights.htm Office of Privacy and Civil Liberties. (n.d.). Department of Justice. Retrieved Sept. 14, 2021, from https://www.justice.gov/opcl OIP Summary of the FOIA Improvement Act of 2016. (2016, Aug. 17). Department of Justice. https://www.justice.gov/oip/oip-summary-foia-improvement-act-2016 Overview of the Privacy Act: 2020 Edition. (2021, Feb. 16). Department of Justice. https://www.justice.gov/opcl/overview-privacy-act-1974-2020-edition/disclosures-third-parties Patriot Act. (n.d.) History.com. Retrieved Sept. 14, 2021, from https://www.history.com/topics/21st-century/patriot-act Privacy Act of 1974. 5 U.S.C. § 552a. (n.d.). Department of Justice. Retrieved Sept. 14, 2021, from https://bja.ojp.gov/program/it/privacy-civil-liberties/authorities/statutes/1279#vf4tzl Privacy Act, 5 U.S.C. § 552a(b). (1974). USA PATRIOT Act. (n.d.). Department of Justice. Retrieved Sept. 14, 2021, from https://bja.ojp.gov/program/it/privacy-civil-liberties/authorities/statutes/1281 Walls, T. (n.d.). FOIA v. Privacy Act: A comparison chart. IAPP. https://iapp.org/resources/article/foia-v-privacy-act-a-comparison-chart/
Privacy Rights		In the United States, the right to privacy was not originally codified but established through Supreme Court cases around the 1960s (Privacy, n.d.). Prior to this time, the Court recognized in Snyder v. Massachusetts (1934) that some concepts of fairness are fundamental, but not expressed. In 1965, the Court heard and decided Griswold v. Connecticut. In the majority opinion, Justice William Douglas argues that the Court had previously ruled on cases in which rights were not explicit in the Bill of Rights, but the rights were justifiable to the Court through the First and Fourteenth Amendments (Griswold v. Connecticut, 1965, par. 11). Later in the opinion of the court, he states that in other cases, such as Boyd v. United States (1886), Mapp v. Ohio (1961), and Poe v. Ullman (1961), the court used the ‘penumbras’ of the First, Third, Fourth, Fifth, and Ninth Amendments to make decisions on implicit liberties (Griswold v. CT, 1965, pars. 14-15). Combined, these penumbras create what the Griswold v. Connecticut majority opinion calls “zones of privacy” (Privacy, n.d.). In a concurring Griswold opinion, Justice Arthur Goldberg argues that while liberties extend beyond the Bill of Rights, he, Chief Justice Earl Warren, and Justice William Brennan feel that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment does not include “all of the first eight amendments” (Griswold v. CT, 1965, par. 21). However, in a different concurring opinion, Justice John Marshall Harlan found “[t]he Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment stands […] on its own bottom” (Griswold v. CT, 1965, par. 53; Privacy, n.d.). Justice Harlan’s concurring opinion became the predominant argument used in later privacy cases (Privacy, n.d.). In 1967, the Supreme Court decided the case of Katz v. United States (Katz v. US, n.d.). Katz, located in Los Angeles, had been using a public phone booth to inform bettors in Boston and Miami, and in an effort to convict him, federal agents tapped the phone booth (Katz v. US, n.d.). A lower court allowed this evidence to be admitted, but Katz claimed it was a violation of the Fourth Amendment (Katz v. US, n.d.). The Supreme Court sided 7-1 with Katz and establishes that “the Fourth Amendment protects people, not places” (Katz v. United States, 1967). In a concurring opinion, Justice Harlan established the Expectation for Privacy Test (Katz v. US, n.d.; Expectation of Privacy, n.d.). This test is two-fold – the individual must have an expectation for privacy which is rooted in law and society finds that expectation for privacy to be reasonable – and has been used as a basis for privacy since (Expectation of Privacy, n.d.). After these two cases, the Supreme Court has continued to extend the right to privacy, notably so in three landmark cases: Eisenstadt v. Baird (1971), Roe v. Wade (1972), and Lawrence v. Texas (2003) through the use of the Fourteenth Amendment and Justice Harlan’s concurring Griswold opinion (Privacy, n.d.). Eisenstadt extended the use of contraceptives beyond married couples to individuals (Privacy, n.d.). Roe extended the right to privacy to the women’s right to have an abortion (Privacy, n.d.). Lawrence v. Texas' overturned Bowers v. Hardwick (1986) and extended privacy to private conduct (Privacy, n.d.). REFERENCES: Expectation of Privacy. (n.d.). Cornell Law School Legal Information Institute. Retrieved Sept. 13, 2021, from https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/expectation_of_privacy Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965). https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/381/479 Katz v. United States. (n.d.). Oyez. Retrieved September 13, 2021, from https://www.oyez.org/cases/1967/35 Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967). https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/389/347 Privacy. (n.d.). Cornell Law School Legal Information Institute. Retrieved Sept. 8, 2021, from https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/privacy Snyder v. Massachusetts, 291 U.S. 97 (1934). https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/291/97
Voting Rights and Suffrage		The right to vote has developed into an international norm over the past several decades, one often made an element of national constitutions. The widespread suffrage we see today was achieved through the struggle of advocates for democracy around the globe. Other political forces, beyond national constitutions, have also guided the global development of voting rights, to some degree. International and regional conventions on human, civic, and political rights further encourage states to protect their citizens’ right to vote. Examples include The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), and the Organization of American States (OAS), to name just a few. (Kirshner, 2003) Though ambitious, such conventions are rarely legally binding, thus lacking enforcement. Furthermore, they present a general framework that allows national governments to find and exploit loopholes based on their own interests, should they desire to do so. A government’s motivation plays a key role in how it implements voting rights. While we typically think of suffrage as a way of empowering citizens, it functions just as easily as a tool of legitimation to counter both domestic and international criticism. The latter function is common in “anocratic” states that blend democracy with authoritarianism, and can use voting rights as an attempt to gain clout and legitimacy in the global arena. (Global Citizen) References: Global Citizen. “What Democracy and Voting Rights Look Like Around the World.” n.d. Global Citizen. Accessed June 9, 2021. https://www.globalcitizen.org/en/content/its-2016-here-is-the-state-of-voting-rights-around/. Kirshner, Alexander. 2003. “The International Status of the Right to Vote.” Democracy Coalition Project.