张远和:论劝诱改宗的宪法界限

选择字号:   本文共阅读 274 次 更新时间:2015-12-08 20:28:08

进入专题: 宗教自由  

张远和  
[19] Thomas v. Coiiins, 323 U. S.516(1945),539-540.

   [20] Ward v. Rock Against Racism, 491 U. S.781(1989),791.

   [21] Martin v. City of Struthers, 319 U. S.141(1943),144.

   [22]Amy L. Groff, Watchtower Bible & Tract Society of New York,Inc.v. Village of Stratton: U. S. Supreme Court Slams the Door on Small Town's Ordinance Requiring Solicitor Permits,12 Widener L. J.633(2003).

   [23] Nathan W. Kellum, Pennit Schemes: Under Current Jurisprudence, What Permits Are Permitted?56 Drake L. Rev.381.

   [24] Michael M. Greenburg, Heffron v. International Society for Krishna Consciousness Inc.: A Restrictive Constitutional View of the Proselytizing Rights of Religious Organizations,9 Pepperdine L. Rev.519(1982).

   [25] Ronald Baxt Turovsky, Heffron v. International Society for Krishna Consciousness, Inc.: Confusing Free Speech with Free Exercise Rights,71 Calif. L. Rev.1012(1983).

   [26]本文对姊妹案 International Society for Krishna Consciousness v. Lee 和 Lee v. International Society for Krishna Consciousness 一并讨论。

   [27] Perry Ed. Assn. v. Perry Local Educators’Assn.,460 U. S.37(1983),45,46.

   [28]Hague v. Committee for Industrial Organization,307 U. S.496(1939),515.

   [29]Cornelius v. NAACP Legal Defense &Ed. Fund.Inc.,473 U. S.788(1985),802.

   [30] Lehman V, Shaker Heights, 418 U. S.298(1974),303.

   [31] Stephen K. Schutte,International Society for Krishna Consciousness,Inc. v. Lee: the Public Forum Doctrine Falls to a Government Intent Standard,23 Golden Gate U. L. Rev.563(1993); Linda M. Dorney, International Society for Krishna Consciousness, Inc. v. Lee: Censorship in the Airports?20 Ohio N. U. L. Rev.179(1993-1994); Gary E. Newberry, Constitutional Law; International Society for Krishna Consciousness,Inc. v. Lee: Is the Public Forum a Closed Category?46 Okla. L. Rev.155(1993); Mark W. Shaughnessy, No First Amendment Protection for Solicitation of Money in Publicly-Operated Airport Terminal,27 Suffolk U. L. Rev.941(1993); A. Nicholas Georggin, International Society for Krishna Consciousness,Inc. v. Lee: When a Public Forum is Not a Public Forum for First Amendment Purposes,20 W. St. U. L. Rev.715(1993).

   [32]David A. Stoll, Public Forum Doctrine Crashes at Kennedy Airport, Injuring Nine: International Society for Krishna Consciousness, Inc. v. Lee,59 Brooklyn L. Rev.1271(1993).

   [33]Howard 0. Hunter &Polly J. Price, Regulation of Religious Proselytism in the United States,2001 B.Y.U.L. Rev.537(2001).

   [34]Tony Bickel, Windshield Leafleting Ordinances: A Permissible Use of Local Government Authority? 79 U. Cin. L. Rev.749(2010).

   [35]Mark Strasser, Preaching, Fundraising and the Constitution: On Proselytizing and the First Amendment,85 Denv. U. L. Rev.405(2007).

   [36]Ibid.

   [37] Bundesrepublik Deutschland v. Y (C -71/11), Z (C -99/11), C -71/11 and C -99/11.European Union: Court of Justice of the European Union,5 September 2012.

   [38]Joseph Brossart,European Court of Human Rights Religious Freedom Doctrine and the Russian Federation Law “On Freedom of Conscience and Religious Organizations”,22 B. C. Int'l & Comp. L. Rev.297(1999).

   [39] Paul M. Taylor, The Questionable Grounds of Objections to Proselytism and Certain Other Forms of Religious Expression, 3 B. Y. U. L. Rev.811(2006).

   [40] Jilan Kamal, Justified Interference with Religious Freedom: The European Court of Human Rights and the Need for Mediating Doctrine Under Article 9(2),46 Colum. J. Transnat'l L.667(2007-2008).

   [41] Javier Martinez-Torron,Limitations on religious freedom in the case law of the European Court of Human Righls,19 Emory Int’l L. Rev.587(2005).

   [42]Willi Fuhrmann, Perspectives on Religious Freedom from the Vantage Point of the European Court of Human Rights, 3 B. Y. U. L. Rev.829(2000).

   [43]Francoise Tulkens, The European Convention on Human Rights and Church-state Relations: Pluralism vs. pluralism,30 Cardozo L. Rev.2575(2009).

   [44] Stephanos Stavros, Human Rights in Greece: Twelve Years of Supervision from Strasbourg, Journal of Modern Greek Studies,17.1(1999)3-21.

   [45] Jilan Kamal, Justified Interference with Religious Freedom: The European Court of Human Rights and the Need for Mediating Doctrine Under Article 9(2),46 Colum.丄 Transnat’l L.667(2007-2008).

   [46]Ilias Trispiotis, The Duty to Respect Religious Feelings: Insights from European Human Rights Law,19 Colum. J. Eur. L.499(2013).

   [47]派系(Sects)在这里是新兴宗教或邪教之类的意思。

   [48] Willi Fuhrmann, Perspectives on Religious Freedom from the Vantage Point of the European Court of Human Rights,2000 B. Y. U. L. Rev.829(2000).

[49]Francoise Tulkens,(点击此处阅读下一页)

    进入专题: 宗教自由  

本文责编:陈冬冬
发信站:爱思想(http://www.aisixiang.com),栏目:天益学术 > 法学 > 宪法学与行政法学
本文链接:http://www.aisixiang.com/data/94880.html
文章来源:《行政法论丛》2014年第2期

0 推荐

在方框中输入电子邮件地址,多个邮件之间用半角逗号(,)分隔。

爱思想(aisixiang.com)网站为公益纯学术网站,旨在推动学术繁荣、塑造社会精神。
凡本网首发及经作者授权但非首发的所有作品,版权归作者本人所有。网络转载请注明作者、出处并保持完整,纸媒转载请经本网或作者本人书面授权。
凡本网注明“来源:XXX(非爱思想网)”的作品,均转载自其它媒体,转载目的在于分享信息、助推思想传播,并不代表本网赞同其观点和对其真实性负责。若作者或版权人不愿被使用,请来函指出,本网即予改正。
Powered by aisixiang.com Copyright © 2020 by aisixiang.com All Rights Reserved 爱思想 京ICP备12007865号 京公网安备11010602120014号.
易康网