The standard account of the First Amendment presupposes that the Supreme Court has consistently expanded the scope of free speech rights over time. This account holds true in some areas, but not in others. In this illuminating work, Ronald J. Krotoszynski, Jr acknowledges that the contemporary Supreme Court rigorously enforces the rules against content and viewpoint discrimination for those who possess the wherewithal to speak but when citizens need the government's assistance to speak - for example, access to public property for protest - free speech rights have declined. Instead of using open-ended balancing tests, the Roberts and Rehnquist Courts have opted for bright line, categorical rules that minimize judicial discretion. Opportunities for democratic engagement could be enhanced, however, if the federal courts returned to the Warren Court's balancing approach and vested federal judges with discretionary authority to require government to assist would-be speakers. This book should be read by anyone concerned with free speech and its place in democratic self-government.

The First Amendment-and its guarantee of free speech for all Americans-has been at the center of scholarly and public debate since the birth of the Constitution, and the fervor in which intellectuals, politicians, and ordinary citizens approach the topic shows no sign of abating as the legal boundaries and definitions of free speech are continually evolving and facing new challenges. Such discussions have generally remained within the boundaries of the U.S. Constitution and its American context, but consideration of free speech in other industrial democracies can offer valuable insights into the relationship between free speech and democracy on a larger and more global scale, thereby shedding new light on some unexamined (and untested) assumptions that underlie U.S. free speech doctrine. Ronald J. Krotoszynski, Jr., compares the First Amendment with free speech law in Japan, Canada, Germany, and the United Kingdom-countries that are all considered modern democracies but have radically different understandings of what constitutes free speech. Challenging the popular-and largely American-assertion that free speech is inherently necessary for democracy to thrive, Krotoszynski contends that it is very difficult to speak of free speech in universalist terms when the concept is examined from a framework of comparative law that takes cultural difference into full account.

The standard account of the First Amendment presupposes that the Supreme Court has consistently expanded the scope of free speech rights over time. This account holds true in some areas, but not in others. In this illuminating work, Ronald J. Krotoszynski, Jr acknowledges that the contemporary Supreme Court rigorously enforces the rules against content and viewpoint discrimination for those who possess the wherewithal to speak but when citizens need the government's assistance to speak - for example, access to public property for protest - free speech rights have declined. Instead of using open-ended balancing tests, the Roberts and Rehnquist Courts have opted for bright line, categorical rules that minimize judicial discretion. Opportunities for democratic engagement could be enhanced, however, if the federal courts returned to the Warren Court's balancing approach and vested federal judges with discretionary authority to require government to assist would-be speakers. This book should be read by anyone concerned with free speech and its place in democratic self-government.

aThe uniquely American sense of freedom that makes the First Amendment so beloved and so respected in its homeland is precisely what makes it a difficult model for constitutional protection of expression in other political systems. In this survey of free speech policies in Canada, Germany, Japan, and the United Kingdom, Krotosyznski introduces American students and scholars of constitutional law to a diverse range of culturally contingent approaches to protecting the freedom of expression in other industrialized countries. . . . As Krotosyznskias fascinating project demonstrates, comparative constitutional analysis challenges us as Americans to examine critically the cultural assumptions underlying our legal system.a
--Jim Chen, University of Minnesota Law School

"There are very few scholars who are willing to read as widely in the law of the world as Krotoszynski, and very few who are capable of forming such confident and intelligent judgments."
--James Whitman, Yale Law School

"For better or worse recent Supreme Court jurisprudence evidences a growing struggle over whether and, if so, how to address foreign court decisions. Ronald Krotoszynski's first-rate analysis of the comparative dimension of free speech issues could not be more timely. Not only does his work shed important light on free speech, but it informs as well."
--Michael Heise, Cornell Law School

"Krotoszynski has produced one of the best examples of the growing literature on comparative public law. His analysis of free speech law in four modern democracies is distinctive in that it goes beyond merely describing the rules governing expression in those countries to address the deeper differences incultural attitudes that explain the disparate legal outcomes. His sophisticated treatment of the intersecting lines of theory, doctrine, and culture makes this the most thorough and compelling assessment of comparative free speech law on the market today."
--Steven G. Gey, David and Deborah Fonvielle & Donald and Janet Hinkle Professor of Law, Florida State University College of Law

Krotoszynskias conclusions are revealing and forcefully presented. This is especially so when they are based on the authoras sophisticated and copiously documented comparison of the US with four advanced legal systems committed to participatory politics. The book undoubtedly challenges many of us who smugly accept American aexceptionalisma in freedom of speech and the press...Krotoszynski helps us appreciate the value of comparative free speech with a new, penetrating perspective.a
--"The Law and Politics Book Review"

The First Amendment --and its guarantee of free speech for all Americans--has been at the center of scholarly and public debate since the birth of the Constitution, and the fervor in which intellectuals, politicians, and ordinary citizens approach the topic shows no sign of abating as the legal boundaries and definitions of free speech are continually evolving and facing new challenges. Such discussions have generally remained within the boundaries of the U.S. Constitution and its American context, but consideration of free speech in other industrial democracies can offer valuable insights into the relationship between free speech and democracy on a larger and more global scale, thereby shedding new light on some unexamined (and untested) assumptions that underlie U.S. free speechdoctrine.

Ronald Krotoszynski compares the First Amendment with free speech law in Japan, Canada, Germany, and the United Kingdom--countries that are all considered modern democracies but have radically different understandings of what constitutes free speech. Challenging the popular--and largely American--assertion that free speech is inherently necessary for democracy to thrive, Krotoszynski contends that it is very difficult to speak of free speech in universalist terms when the concept is examined from a framework of comparative law that takes cultural difference into full account.

Rapid technological change, the advent of Big Data, and the creation of society-wide government surveillance programs have transformed the accessibility of highly personal information; these developments have highlighted the ambiguous treatment of privacy and personal intimacy. National legal systems vouchsafe and define "privacy," and its first cousin "dignity," in different ways that reflect local legal and cultural values. Yet, in an increasingly globalized world, purely local protection of privacy interests may prove insufficient to safeguard effectively fundamental autonomy interests - interests that lie at the core of self-definition, personal autonomy, and freedom. Privacy Revisited articulates the legal meanings of privacy and dignity through the lens of comparative law, and argues that the concept of privacy requires a more systematic approach if it is to be useful in framing and protecting certain fundamental autonomy interests. The book begins by providing relevant, and reasonably detailed, information about both the substantive and procedural protections of privacy/dignity in the U.S., Canada, South Africa, the United Kingdom, and among Council of Europe member states. Second, the book explores the inherent tension between affording significant legal protection to the right of privacy (or human dignity) and securing expressive freedoms, notably including the freedom of speech and of the press. The author then posits that the protection of privacy helps to illuminate some of the underlying social and political values that lead the U.S. to fail to protect privacy as reliably or as comprehensively as other liberal democracies. Finally, the book establishes that although privacy and speech come into conflict with some regularity, it is both useful and necessary to start thinking about the important ways in which both rights are integral to the maintenance of democratic self-government.