Your search
Results 726 resources
-
This chapter addresses the salience of the Rawlsian idea of public reason for freedom of speech. It applies a philosophical template of Public Reason to a typically legal issue: what motivations for speech restrictions render the restriction legitimate under the Public Reason criterion, and what motivations taint the law as illegitimate, because they are non-endorsable by reasonable persons to whom they apply. Traces of this pattern of argument can be found in several legal systems: in the United States, Germany, New Zealand, and Australia, when they grapple with constitutionality of restrictions on freedom of speech, and choose the motive path (rather than the effects path) of scrutiny. The most typical pattern of argument is the one which disfavours content-oriented restrictions, as compared to content-neutral restrictions. This distinction offers attractive avenues of argument when it is viewed in the context of legislative motives, and how they fare under a general principle of Public Reason. The chapter then establishes that viewpoint restrictions and subject-matter restrictions—two subcategories of a broader genus of content-based restrictions of freedom of speech—correspond to two perceived wrongful motivations in regulating speech: intolerance and paternalism.
-
Newly and thoroughly revised, Halsbury's Conflict of Laws (2020 Reissue) analyzes and explains the broad range of conflict questions and rules impacting Canada's 14 jurisdictions. The realities of a global marketplace and shrinking political borders mean that the application and reach of law are seldom confined to a province, a country or even a continent. The field of conflict of laws, also known as private international law, concerns the mechanisms for addressing cross-jurisdictional legal conflicts in regard to three major areas: choice of law ; choice of jurisdiction ; recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments.
-
Although it has long been acknowledged that heuristics influence judicial decision making, researchers have yet to explore how sentencing guidelines might interact with heuristics to shape sentencing decisions. This article contributes to addressing this gap in the literature in three ways: first, by considering how heuristics might help produce the phenomenon of sentence clustering, in which a significant proportion of sentences are concentrated around a small number of outcomes; second, by reflecting on the role of sentencing guidelines as a feature of the environment within which sentencing decisions are made; and third, by analysing the guidelines from Minnesota and from England and Wales, theorizing how their content might interact with heuristics to make clustering more or less likely. Ultimately, we argue that sentencing guidelines likely affect the role played by heuristics in shaping sentencing decisions and, consequently, that their design should be informed by research evidence from the decision sciences.
-
Disclaimer: This summary was generated by AI based on the content of the source document.
Explore
Resource type
- Blog Post (5)
- Book (206)
- Book Section (51)
- Case (234)
- Dictionary Entry (38)
- Document (1)
- Encyclopedia Article (1)
- Journal Article (181)
- Magazine Article (2)
- Newspaper Article (1)
- Presentation (1)
- Report (4)
- Thesis (1)
Topics
- Aboriginal law (4)
- Aboriginal peoples (2)
- Abuse of process (5)
- Access to information (1)
- Administrative law (9)
- Admissibility (1)
- Appeals (5)
- Arrest (2)
- Bankruptcy and insolvency (6)
- Banks (1)
- Charge to jury (2)
- Charter of Rights (31)
- Child and family services (1)
- Choice of forum (1)
- Civil liability (1)
- Civil procedure (4)
- Communications law (1)
- Constitutional law (51)
- Contracts (2)
- Copyright (1)
- Costs (1)
- Court having jurisdiction (1)
- Courts (8)
- Criminal law (88)
- Crown law (1)
- Custody (4)
- Declaration of invalidity (1)
- Discoverability (1)
- Division of powers (4)
- Evidence (15)
- Expropriation (2)
- Extraterritoriality (1)
- Family law (7)
- Fiduciary duty (1)
- Financial institutions (1)
- Fitness to stand trial (1)
- Habeas corpus (1)
- Human rights (1)
- Immigration (3)
- Impaired driving (2)
- Income tax (4)
- Informer privilege (1)
- Insurance (2)
- Intellectual property (3)
- Judicial review (3)
- Jurisdiction (5)
- Labour relations (1)
- Limitation of actions (1)
- Mediation (1)
- Negligence (1)
- Obligation of loyalty (1)
- Obstructing justice (1)
- Occupational health and safety (1)
- Open court principle (1)
- Patents (1)
- Prerogative writs (1)
- Prescription (1)
- Private international law (2)
- Property (1)
- Prosecutorial immunity (1)
- Provincial offences (1)
- Publication bans (1)
- Real property (1)
- Right to security of person (1)
- Sale of goods (1)
- Securities (1)
- Sentencing (9)
- Sex workers (1)
- Sexual assault (6)
- Status of persons (1)
- Statutes (1)
- Taxation (6)
- Telecommunications (1)
- Torts (1)
- Trafficking in persons (1)
- Transportation law (2)
- Treaty rights (1)
- Trial (5)
- Voyeurism (1)
- Young persons (2)