この文献の参照には次のURLをご利用ください : https://doi.org/10.15027/53543
廣島法學 46 巻 3 号
2023-01-20 発行
政治的ボイコットは表現の自由の保護を受けられるか : 近時のキャンセルカルチャーをめぐる議論を契機として
Are Political Boycotts Protected by Freedom of Expression?: Triggered by the recent discussion on cancel culture
檜垣 宏太
Abstract
Recently, in Japan, in addition to criticizing and accusing individuals who have made discriminatory remarks and displayed other inappropriate behavior, there have been calls for disciplinary action, dismissal, and termination of contracts from the organization to which the individuals belong. “Cancel culture”, which is an act that encourages boycotts of the works and businesses, is intensifying as a social problem. However, it is unclear how Japanese society perceives "cancel culture". It is necessary to analyze cancel culture not as a political or moral issue, but as a legal issue, especially a constitutional one. As a prerequisite for analyzing cancel culture and constructing a constitutional regulatory framework, I will examine whether political boycott, which is typical of expression accompanied by "pressure," is protected by freedom of expression. In addition, if political boycotts are protected by freedom of expression, the degree of protection will also be considered.
In this study, this article will refer to the discussions in the United States. Among them, NAACP v. Claiborne Hardware Co., 458 U.S. 886 (1982) clearly argued that political boycotts accompanied by social pressure should be given protection for freedom of expression, and that the highest protection in the hierarchy of freedom of expression should be given. In accordance with U.S. Supreme Court's rulings, such acts with social pressure, as reading the names of boycott violators at rallies, writing about them in local newspapers, etc., are protected by the First Amendment as part of political boycotts. Also, in principle, even if some of the participants in the political boycott commit illegal acts, other participants will not be held legally responsible.
The main reason why political boycotts accompanied by social pressure are given generous protection is possibly because society adopts democracy and guarantees freedom of expression. However, not only that, the empowerment of social minorities may be a motivating force as well.
The above are important clues when considering whether or not cancel culture should be protected by freedom of expression, and if so, to what extent it should be protected.
In this study, this article will refer to the discussions in the United States. Among them, NAACP v. Claiborne Hardware Co., 458 U.S. 886 (1982) clearly argued that political boycotts accompanied by social pressure should be given protection for freedom of expression, and that the highest protection in the hierarchy of freedom of expression should be given. In accordance with U.S. Supreme Court's rulings, such acts with social pressure, as reading the names of boycott violators at rallies, writing about them in local newspapers, etc., are protected by the First Amendment as part of political boycotts. Also, in principle, even if some of the participants in the political boycott commit illegal acts, other participants will not be held legally responsible.
The main reason why political boycotts accompanied by social pressure are given generous protection is possibly because society adopts democracy and guarantees freedom of expression. However, not only that, the empowerment of social minorities may be a motivating force as well.
The above are important clues when considering whether or not cancel culture should be protected by freedom of expression, and if so, to what extent it should be protected.
About This Article
権利情報
許可なく複製・転載することを禁じる
Other Article