Abstract
This chapter provides a close analysis of the very different jurisprudential treatment of campaign speech in the United States and Britain. The jurisprudence developed by the US Supreme Court is of course a well-known outlier, in which the rights to speak and to spend money on speech are given the broadest possible scope and protection. The UK system, in contrast, readily permits what in the US would be considered intolerable restrictions on the rights to speak and spend money for political purposes. The chapter traces these differing approaches ultimately not to distinctions in each society's underlying conceptions of democracy, but to differences between the self-understandings of the two systems' apex courts, in particular to their understandings of epistemological competence. The US Supreme Court claims independent insight into the requirements of democratic legitimacy, whereas the UK Supreme Court does not, with the result that the UK court extends deference to other branches of government in a way that the US court is unwilling to do.
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.