L.W. Sumner brings philosophical depth and theoretical rigour to some of the most important and difficult questions concerning free expression. Building on a framework set out by J.S. Mill – that a legal restriction of expression is justified only when the expression in question is harmful to others and when the benefits of the restriction will exceed its costs – Sumner shows how the Canadian courts have replicated Mill's framework in their interpretation of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
The Hateful and the Obscene is a compelling interpretation of freedom of expression that combines serious philosophical thought with a focus on Canadian law, thus maintaining the breadth to deal with both obscenity and hate literature.
In the first of two major volumes on the intersection of constitutional and religious issues in the United States, Kent Greenawalt focuses on one of the Constitution's main clauses concerning religion: the Free Exercise Clause. Beginning with a brief account of the clause's origin and a short history of the Supreme Court's leading decisions about freedom of religion, he devotes a chapter to each of the main controversies encountered by judges and lawmakers. Sensitive to each case's context in judging whether special treatment of religious claims is justified, Greenawalt argues that the state's treatment of religion cannot be reduced to a single formula.
Calling throughout for religion to be taken more seriously as a force for meaning in people's lives, Religion and the Constitution aims to accommodate the maximum expression of religious conviction that is consistent with a commitment to fairness and the public welfare.