The Re-Emergence of the Athlete Activist

Expressions in support of social justice, inclusion, anti-discrimination and LGBTQI+ rights no longer appear to breach Rule 50. Where Rule 50 could still come into play is where athlete activists seek to demonstrate their support for overtly political causes. The guidance states unequivocally that expressions must not be targeted at people, organisations, or countries. At Beijing 2022, any expression/gesture aimed at an individual politician, the Communist Party of China, or the Chinese state will remain a breach of Rule 50.

Keeping Politics Out

Throughout history, the IOC always faced tough choices when it dealt with freedom of speech. It attempted to act within the framework of international human rights law whilst it continuously promoted the autonomy of sport from all political interests. At this point, it does not seem that the IOC will move away from its general, apolitical stance.

Property, Proportionality, and Marginality

On 31 January 2022, the Irish Supreme Court delivered a landmark judgment that collapsed, at least in respect of remedies, a previously rigidly-drawn distinction between the private law rights and the public law obligations of housing authorities. The judgment breaks important new ground in emphasising the underprivileged and marginalised status of the Travelling community, and furthermore, in identifying that status as a factor that could weigh against the granting of an injunctive remedy.

Speaking up in Beijing or not?

The Beijing Winter Olympics might constitute a boiling point for the ongoing debate on the freedom of expression of athletes and fans participating in international sporting competitions. This blog symposium brings this debate to a more general audience interested in issues related to human rights, constitutionalization of transnational legal processes and private governance. As an introduction to the contributions, our blog highlights a number of fundamental points which will be at the heart of this discussion.

Objektivitätsillusionen des Verfassungsrechts

In der Diskussion zwischen Ute Sacksofsky und Klaus Ferdinand Gärditz, an der sich jetzt auch Hans Peter Bull beteiligt hat, treffen zwei grundsätzlich unterschiedliche Weltverständnisse aufeinander. Gärditz nähert sich der Welt und dem in ihr zu beobachtenden Geschehen mit der Konstruktion einer eindeutigen Dichotomie. Für subjektives Empfinden, subjektive Weltdeutungen und Selbstverständnisse ist kein Raum. Die kulturtheoretisch sensibilisierte Sichtweise Ute Sacksofskys hingegen entwirft eine vollständig andere Welt.

Terrorism law and the erosion of free speech in the UK

The horrifying nature and unpredictability of terrorist attacks in the past two decades meant that in the UK, the extensions of state power had considerable public support in the years following 9/11. While useful to authorities dealing with an unpredictable threat, there are several factors in the laws that provide a potent recipe to erode expression rights.

Willkürfreiheit und Impfpflicht

Wie ist die Schwere des Grundrechtseingriffs in die körperliche Unversehrtheit durch eine Impfpflicht zu bemessen? Das ist der zentrale Streitpunkt in der intensiven Verfassungsblog-Debatte zwischen Ute Sacksofsky und Klaus Ferdinand Gärditz. Aus unserer Sicht enthalten beide Positionen zutreffende Einsichten, zwischen denen sich praktische Konkordanz herstellen lässt.

›An assault on the constitution‹

India's complex interlocking of securitization and freedom of expression poses a serious challenge to democratic ideals of free speech. Today, we witness increased targeting of journalists and activists across the country. In particular, conflict-ridden regions have presented a more serious situation where journalists face accusations of conspiring with the enemies of the state. The growing practice of muzzling the press and forums of public debate has created a culture of fear among the civil society, which directly affects the quality of democracy and free speech.

On the Right to Compulsory Vaccination

The legitimacy of compulsory vaccination is a question of what kind of freedom we want. It is not a matter of state decree, but rather the reaction of a democratic constitutional state to an omission that can be interpreted as a violation of the freedom of others. If we take the legal relationship of freedom as a basis, some guidelines for models of compulsory vaccination emerge.