著者

小谷 順子

出版者

日本法政学会

雑誌

法政論叢 (ISSN:03865266)

巻号頁・発行日

vol.42, no.1, pp.145-160, 2005

---

The Canadian Supreme Court has upheld hate speech regulation in several cases, whereas the U. S. Supreme Court has struck down such regulation, invalidating the idea of such regulation. This article focuses on Canadian Supreme Court cases involving hate speech regulation and analyzes the reasons behind the contrasting attitudes of the two neighboring countries with similar backgrounds. Chapter I briefly outlines the constitutional problems surrounding the regulation of hate speech in the democratic world. Chapter II describes general characteristics of Freedom of Speech in Canada, which is guaranteed by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Chapter III analyzes five cases ruled in the Canadian Supreme Court, four of which upheld hate speech regulation. Chapter IV makes comparative analysis of Canadian and U. S. cases by referring to differences in the texts of the Constitutions, case laws, public acceptance, and so forth.

著者

小谷 順子

出版者

日本法政学会

雑誌

法政論叢 (ISSN:03865266)

巻号頁・発行日

vol.40, no.2, pp.149-167, 2004

---

In 1992, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down an ordinance banning "fighting words", including cross-burning and the display of swastika, that insulted others or provoked violence "on the basis of race, color, creed, religion or gender." In R.A.V. v. St. Paul, the Court stated that the ordinance impermissibly discriminated against unpopular topics within the category of proscribable speech and thus violated the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. Although the Court acknowledged that combating racism was in the city's interest, it concluded that the city could not advance that interest by singling out unfavorable speech for punishment and declared the ordinance unconstitutional. In 1993, however, the Court upheld a Wisconsin penalty-enhancement law in Wisconsin v. Mitchell, declaring that the statute only penalized the criminal action, not the idea or speech. After R.A.V. and Mitchell, hate speech regulations of any form were considered impermissible while penalty enhancement laws and their variations were considered permissible, and the lower courts handled the cases before them accordingly. Cross-burning statutes, however, caused confusion, with five statutes being declared unconstitutional and two constitutional. In 2003 the Supreme Court upheld a Virginia statute banning cross-burning with the intent to threaten others in Virginia v. Black. The Court stated that the statute simply singled out the most terrifying type of threat of all types of threat, and therefore it did not discriminate against certain topics or viewpoints as the ordinance in R.A. V. did. This article analyzes these three federal high court cases along with seven state cases, and then compares R.A.V. and Black, and concludes that the two codes both banned controversial topic within proscribable categories and that the Court's handling of the two cases was inconsistent and inappropriate.

著者

小谷 順子

出版者

日本法政学会

雑誌

法政論叢 (ISSN:03865266)

巻号頁・発行日

vol.36, no.1, pp.160-169, 1999

---

When racial/sexual harassment became rampant in the U.S. in 1980s, many colleges and universities along with local governments adopted regulations which proscribed hate speech and other fotms of hatred. In 1992, however, the Supreme Court struck down an ordinance banning "fighting words" that insulted or provoked violence "on the basis of race, color, creed, religion or gender." In R.A.V.v.City of St. Paul, the Court stated that the ordinance impermissibly discriminated against unpopular topics. Critics of R.A.V. showed deep concern for the logic of the Court and others provided their reasoning for upholding strictly framed regulations. In this Article, I intend to present outline of the debate on hate speech regulations in the United States. In Chapter II, I overview the anti-regulation argument by presenting R.A.V. and then point out the flaw in its logic. In Chapter III, I turn to the pro-regulation argument and discuss how the proponents of the regulations solves the problem of content/viewpoint discrimination. I then present the harm caused by hate speech, and finally analyze hate speech regulations under the values of the Freedom of Speech.

著者

小谷 順子

出版者

慶應義塾大学法学研究会

雑誌

法學研究 : 法律・政治・社会 (ISSN:03890538)

巻号頁・発行日

vol.87, no.2, pp.385-412, 2014-02

---

小林節教授退職記念号一 日本における憎悪表現(ヘイトスピーチ)をとりまく状況 1 はじめに 2 国際社会の動きと日本の対応二 日本国内の法制度の下における憎悪表現への対処 1 既存の法律による対処の可能性 2 刑事法による規制(一) : 表現内容規制の類型(脅迫罪、名誉毀損罪、侮辱罪) 3 刑事法による規制(二) : 表現の二次的効果の規制の類型(威力業務妨害罪) 4 人権法による規制 5 公安条例によるデモ規制 6 民事法の不法行為 7 小括三 憎悪表現の規制をめぐる日本の裁判例 1 京都の朝鮮学校に対する憎悪表現をめぐる事件 2 刑事事件第一審(京都地判平二三・四・二一(判例集未登載)) 3 刑事事件控訴審(大阪高判平二三・一〇・二八(判例集未登載)) 4 民事事件第一審(京都地判平二五・一〇・七(判例集未登載))四 若干の考察 1 京都朝鮮学校事件判決をうけて 2 結語

著者

山元 一 新井 誠 小谷 順子 木下 和朗 徳永 貴志 横大道 聡 岡田 順太

雑誌

白鴎大学法政策研究所年報 = Law and Policy Institute journal, an annual (ISSN:18820735)

巻号頁・発行日

no.12, pp.87-119, 2019-03

---

開催日:2018年12月22日講演者:山元一パネルディスカッション

著者

小谷 順子

出版者

静岡大学人文学部

雑誌

静岡大学法政研究 (ISSN:13422243)

巻号頁・発行日

vol.14, no.1, pp.56-34, 2009-09

著者

小谷 順子

出版者

静岡大学人文学部

雑誌

静岡大学法政研究 (ISSN:13422243)

巻号頁・発行日

vol.14, no.3-4, pp.374-344, 2010-03-31

著者

新井 誠 岡田 順太 横大道 聡 小谷 順子 木下 和朗 徳永 貴志

出版者

広島大学法学会

雑誌

広島法科大学院論集 (ISSN:18801897)

巻号頁・発行日

no.12, pp.277-328, 2016-03

---

本文に記したように本稿は,2013年度~2015年度にかけて取得した,科研費・基盤研究(C)「欧米諸国における日本憲法研究の状況をめぐる憲法学的検証」(研究課題番号:25380038)に基づく研究成果である(なお,本研究の一部において,平成27年度慶磨義塾学事振興資金に基づく調査研究も反映されている)。

著者

小谷 順子

出版者

日本法政学会

雑誌

法政論叢 (ISSN:03865266)

巻号頁・発行日

vol.36, no.1, pp.160-169, 1999-11-15 (Released:2017-11-01)

---

When racial/sexual harassment became rampant in the U.S. in 1980s, many colleges and universities along with local governments adopted regulations which proscribed hate speech and other fotms of hatred. In 1992, however, the Supreme Court struck down an ordinance banning "fighting words" that insulted or provoked violence "on the basis of race, color, creed, religion or gender." In R.A.V.v.City of St. Paul, the Court stated that the ordinance impermissibly discriminated against unpopular topics. Critics of R.A.V. showed deep concern for the logic of the Court and others provided their reasoning for upholding strictly framed regulations. In this Article, I intend to present outline of the debate on hate speech regulations in the United States. In Chapter II, I overview the anti-regulation argument by presenting R.A.V. and then point out the flaw in its logic. In Chapter III, I turn to the pro-regulation argument and discuss how the proponents of the regulations solves the problem of content/viewpoint discrimination. I then present the harm caused by hate speech, and finally analyze hate speech regulations under the values of the Freedom of Speech.

著者

藤本 亮 野口 裕之 藤田 政博 堀田 秀吾 小谷 順子 宮下 修一 吉川 真理 正木 祐史 和田 直人

出版者

名古屋大学

雑誌

基盤研究(B)

巻号頁・発行日

2012-04-01

---

TOEFLやTOEICなどで用いられている等化という方法によって、異なった試験の成績を比較することができるようになる。こうした成績測定の分野はテスト理論として研究されている。本研究は、テスト理論の見地から、複数の法律学試験において等化を行い、その下でも成績測定が適切に行えるかを検証している。法律学試験は「資格試験」として実施されることが多いが、実質的には一回限りの競争試験となっている。この研究は、本来の意味での資格試験としての法律学試験の可能性を探る基礎研究である。